![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
"I have to admit, I love the idea of gleeful little girls microwaving Barbies to death."
-A Prominent Male Feminist
This article is getting a lot of discussion on blogs at the moment. I have to say that while the sentiments of women about Barbie, however I may disagree with them, are pretty much understandable, I am disturbed by the glee some males are taking at the idea of "Barbie mutilations."
What I find many are reluctant to examine (especially having come forth with their own reaction that torturing Barbie is just da bomb) is the idea that maybe what girls are doing, here, is not so much acting with aggression towards the expectation that they should be feminine, but perhaps they are re-enacting violence towards women they have seen in the media or played out in real life. I've found that women have been far more likely to think of this as a possibility than have men, even most men calling themselves feminist.
Why the jump to the conclusion that "torturing" Barbie is a positive sign? I can only read this as "girls today hate and torture in effigy a certain type of women. This means they are learning to properly despise this sort of woman just as we, liberal men, despise such women [bimbos, bitches, put your offensive word of choice in the box]. This is a positive sign because it means that girls today, unlike previous generations, are learning to Think Like Men which means equality is nigh!"
What do you think? And apologies if this is not 100% on the unicorn topic.
December 22 2005, 03:15:32 UTC 6 years ago
December 22 2005, 03:22:45 UTC 6 years ago
December 22 2005, 03:28:12 UTC 6 years ago
December 22 2005, 16:19:59 UTC 6 years ago
"That Bitch"
Yeah, that really took me aback too! I was like...."weird...."But I think it's exactly what patriarchy demands of women: distancing ourselves from those loser women to prove that *we* shouldn't be treated like *them*.
Male feminists have taken good, strong feminist criticisms of Mattel (or whatever the company is), the male-run business that *created* and *markets* Barbie, and turned them into criticisms of *Barbie*.
I mean, actual *feminist* criticism was always about "hey, Mattel, you're creating a completely unrealistic view of women through this toy. Cut it out."
Male feminists have turned it into "Barbie is a bimbo bitch." So, of course the women who don't want to be treated like Barbie the bimbo bitch distance themselves from her.
Once again, feminist criticism of men are turned into hatred of women. Dude, Barbie is a *victim* of sexism, not a *purveyor* of sexism. She, more than any other woman has *NO* control over how she's made. Her looks, more than any other woman, are controlled by the *men* who make her. Why is she the celebrated object of derision? Oh, that's right. Any excuse for woman hating.
December 22 2005, 16:02:27 UTC 6 years ago
Statistics
As Q-grrl has pointed out in more than one forum, it's really a statistically unsound conclusion. And there's a lot of information missing.I don't want to restate her criticisms, but my point is this: male feminists spend so much time parsing rape statistics, and calling them into question, in order to "prove" that only a very, very, tiny, almost miniscule, percentage of men rape, that their utter failure to provide even a fraction of the same attention to this "study" is immediately suspect. Their glee is clearly about "see, women hate women, too! hee hee hee"
December 22 2005, 16:05:57 UTC 6 years ago
Re: Statistics
Great point about selective use of the scientific method magnifying glass.(not that the glass isn't plenty warped when they employ it on rape studies; it is. It's just funny how there isn't even a pretense of picking it up on this one, you're exactly right.)
December 22 2005, 16:04:16 UTC 6 years ago
Yes - you know, while thinking about this and wondering why male feminists like that image of the gleeful girl so much, I think it's just another facet of objectification - glorifying the strong/punk woman. Suicide Girls mixed with Lara Croft with a little dominatrix thrown in. The creation of cute-but-tough little fuckable minions in the war against women (but you know, just the gross kind! so it's not misogyny).
December 30 2005, 09:10:58 UTC 6 years ago
The "strong/punk woman" sometimes seems to me like the girly girl/Barbie doll without the things a man who fancied a Playboy-style existence might find inconvenient about stereotypical girly girls — the actual time and attention devoted to appearance (the strong/punk woman just naturally looks like a fully made-up Angelina Jolie), the desire for love/monogamy/marriage and possible lack of interest in casual sex, the lack of physical strength or desire to engage in "manly" pursuits, the willingness to make a man uncomfortable by crying or otherwise expressing hurt feelings.
Not that all of those traits are good, or good for women. But one of the key stereotypes of the girly girl is that she makes too many demands on men, and holding up an idealised image of a woman who gives more and demands less isn't exactly new or revolutionary.
December 30 2005, 18:34:45 UTC 6 years ago
December 29 2005, 12:49:44 UTC 6 years ago
I think it cango both ways at once - it is simultaneously a rejection by girls of the values they are taught to enshrine as "feminine", AND hatred of women who stick to them. I remember my (completely anti-feminist) mother and friends talking about other women when I was growing up - "Oh, she is so beautiful, she looks just like a Barbie doll, so thin and beautiful... I HATE HER SO MUCH!" I heard this over and over - combined expressions of admiration and hatred for women who managed to acheive the "perfection" of looking like a doll.