-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Dora makeover.
- Thread starter Ancax
- Start date
If any of you had read the article, you'd know that Swiper, Boots, and the other characters have not made the transition.
=(
=(
I think Boots might enjoy this switch.
I really just find this kinda stupid and pointless. Keep it the way it was. Also, the art doesnt even look the same, it looks like a differnt person and not Dora at all.
And yes Akuchi, there is no need for feminism here in the US. The parents do not have to buy their daughters make up and dolls with make up, its their choice. I see mothers dressing up their children, and what do the girls look like, just like the mothers. The mothers already decided they want the "beauty Idea", not the little girls. Women also work on marketing teams to make these "beauty idea" dolls for girls to play with. The creator of Barbie was a woman.
If you are suggesting that women need help getting away from this so called "Beauty Idea" then you are suggesting that the women made the wrong decisions when they wanted to be beautiful. Women make make up, women sell make up. Women join Mary Kay, men do not force them too. I guess you think women need to be show that their beauty idea is wrong.
And yes Akuchi, there is no need for feminism here in the US. The parents do not have to buy their daughters make up and dolls with make up, its their choice. I see mothers dressing up their children, and what do the girls look like, just like the mothers. The mothers already decided they want the "beauty Idea", not the little girls. Women also work on marketing teams to make these "beauty idea" dolls for girls to play with. The creator of Barbie was a woman.
If you are suggesting that women need help getting away from this so called "Beauty Idea" then you are suggesting that the women made the wrong decisions when they wanted to be beautiful. Women make make up, women sell make up. Women join Mary Kay, men do not force them too. I guess you think women need to be show that their beauty idea is wrong.
What you're saying is right - there's nothing wrong with women wanting to be beautiful. However, you're completely missing Akuchi's point. The real point is that society and the media forces certain idealized concepts of what a beautiful girl/woman should look like and even how she should behave, and generally frowns upon everything else. In other words, they push the notion that girls should strive to be Barbie dolls (or Bratz, those fugly things.)
And that's one of the positive things about Dora from the little I've seen of the show - a role model like her implies that it's perfectly fine not to look or dress like Barbie and that it's OK to prefer playing outside and physical activity in general over playing with dolls, playing house, or having pretend tea parties with your teddy bear collection.
I'm not going to pass judgement until I see the final version of her new character design but it would suck if they turned her into yet another cliché Barbie-like pretty girl.
But Akuchi is saying that the dolls are "trying to sell an image to girls". This is the comment I am referring to and I am complaining about. The girls dont need to buy into the "beauty image" and wont if the parents talk to their girls and show them that there is more to girls then being beautiful. The problem is, many of the parents these days look just like the dolls. They already have the beauty image in their minds and have no problem with it at all, and it is their choice. Akuchi is implying that we need femanism to fix this problem.
When you say "society", you mean "the media". It is not like that is the only standard of beauty presented.
The problem is that while it's okay for girls to play outside and explore, this fact becomes ideological for too many people, and it becomes more about the cultural sensibilities of someone like akuchi than what the girls actually prefer. Make no mistake, akuchi's point wasn't that girls are being forced into a false ideal (though that is happening), her implied point (supported by akuchi's general socio-cultural mindset) is that any girl who likes tea parties and teddy bears is "brainwashed" and must be "liberated" (or reprogrammed) to whatever standard of female behavior fits their sensibilities.
At the end of the day, girls are going to choose what they prefer. Stop trying to make that choice for them based on your own cultural biases (and yes, "progressives" can have cultural biases)
The problem is that while it's okay for girls to play outside and explore, this fact becomes ideological for too many people, and it becomes more about the cultural sensibilities of someone like akuchi than what the girls actually prefer. Make no mistake, akuchi's point wasn't that girls are being forced into a false ideal (though that is happening), her implied point (supported by akuchi's general socio-cultural mindset) is that any girl who likes tea parties and teddy bears is "brainwashed" and must be "liberated" (or reprogrammed) to whatever standard of female behavior fits their sensibilities.
At the end of the day, girls are going to choose what they prefer. Stop trying to make that choice for them based on your own cultural biases (and yes, "progressives" can have cultural biases)
Yes, that is what I am saying. They are making the choice to be dressed up and all dolled up, the media doesn't need to help, it is already there, and this was the choice of the women. I might not agree that this is best, I might hate the clothing and make up they wear and not find it attractive at all, but it is their choice to do that. The women in the US do not need feminists to "Liberate" them, they can make their decisions on their own.
If Akuchi was really looking out for "Women's Rights" she would support their right to look how ever they want, regardless of what that decision might be. For being a feminist she sure doesn't believe in letting women have much of a choice in what they do. Her statement made it out to be that women are stupid and need to be rescued from the "beauty idea", need to be rescued from the idea that non blond/white women are exotic, need to be rescued from the image of what they should look like. By what she is saying it does sound like she thinks women are stupid and fall for these things.
If Akuchi was really looking out for "Women's Rights" she would support their right to look how ever they want, regardless of what that decision might be. For being a feminist she sure doesn't believe in letting women have much of a choice in what they do. Her statement made it out to be that women are stupid and need to be rescued from the "beauty idea", need to be rescued from the idea that non blond/white women are exotic, need to be rescued from the image of what they should look like. By what she is saying it does sound like she thinks women are stupid and fall for these things.
To say kids have a choice is stretching it. They don't have to get into drugs, smoking or alcohol or really premature sexual experiences either, but many do even when their parents spell out clearly why they're bad ideas. Even if you insisted they "have a choice," you'd have to be blind not to see that Barbie dolls and similar products do try to sell an image to girls. The only reason Barbie dolls have made an attempt to diversify is because of all the bad press they've gotten as a result. It's also a bit of a stretch to say that the problem is that their mothers look like Barbies, because Barbies are an unrealistic standard even for a fully grown woman unless said woman happens to be a model as well.
This new Dora may or may not be trying to exploit the Barbie appeal, but when this sort of thing happens, it's generally safest to assume the worst. The US isn't exactly known for producing quality cartoons since the Golden Age of animation ended; when it all comes down to it it's all about the money.
I think whether Akuchi is a hyper-feminist or watching out for Women's Rights is kind of tangential, regardless of whether you guys are right or not. The real issue here is whether the Dora makeover is just a cheap marketing stunt that's trying to ride on the success of girly dolls to sell more.
Ok so I didnt have the choice to not have sex till I found the person I was going to marry. I didnt have the choice to not do drugs in school. That is the weakest argument ever. Everyone has a choice. Kids are not forced to have sex, forcing sex is called rape, at any age. The girl that is "forced" to have sex with her boyfriend was not forced to date him.
You make choices every day, you are not forced to do anything.
The kids that do take drugs and do have premature sex MAKE THE CHOICE TO DO SO. They just make the stupid decision.
I wasnt saying the problem was that the mothers look like the barbies, the problem with akuchi's statement is that the "adult women" look like barbies.
You make choices every day, you are not forced to do anything.
The kids that do take drugs and do have premature sex MAKE THE CHOICE TO DO SO. They just make the stupid decision.
I wasnt saying the problem was that the mothers look like the barbies, the problem with akuchi's statement is that the "adult women" look like barbies.
Um. I fully support the right of women to dress as they please; if a woman desires she should be able to go out dressed however and not fear recrimination in the form of sexual violence. I think if a woman wants to wear makeup she should, that's her choice; same for miniskirts, pretty dresses, or whatever the hell you name. Personally, I don't enjoy wearing skirts, pretty dresses, makeup and nice clothes; these things bore the hell out of me. One of my best friends, however, is obsessed with pink, eyeliner, and dressing immaculately every day. Do I think she's wasting her time to do so? Absolutely. Does she think I'm wasting my time on pokemon, philosophy and learning Latin? Totally.
Do either of us think the other should stop doing what makes them happy? Fuck no.
Your argument is entirely fallacious and strawman - what I would like to see is more variety presented in the media's ideal of 'beautiful'. What I would like to see is more strong, female characters who don't have to look fantastically attractive and dress well and conform to some stereotype of how a female is supposed to look - what the hell is wrong with that? Kids do not have a choice to what they are exposed to.
Girls don't HAVE a fucking choice (neither do boys, but to a lesser extent than girls and I'll argue that some other time). Girls are told - pink is girly. Football is not girly. Cooking is girly. Running round, being loud, getting dirty and making a mess is not girly.
And no, Ancien Regime, that's not my point either. My point is that girls and boys should be free to like whatever the hell they please, without boys being called (BAN ME PLEASE)y for having a proclivity towards playing with tea-sets and wearing pink and without girls being told they're ugly/boyish/unfeminine because they might enjoy shouting a lot, getting covered in mud and climbing trees.
And finally, Lexite, I'm not going to get into an argument about why feminism is still necessary globally, so let's just drop that point, eh? And please, please, please stay off the implied rape apologism, because you are quite clearly proving my point. The girl/woman that is "forced" to have sex with her boyfriend, as you so abhorrently put it, was raped. End of.
Do either of us think the other should stop doing what makes them happy? Fuck no.
Your argument is entirely fallacious and strawman - what I would like to see is more variety presented in the media's ideal of 'beautiful'. What I would like to see is more strong, female characters who don't have to look fantastically attractive and dress well and conform to some stereotype of how a female is supposed to look - what the hell is wrong with that? Kids do not have a choice to what they are exposed to.
Girls don't HAVE a fucking choice (neither do boys, but to a lesser extent than girls and I'll argue that some other time). Girls are told - pink is girly. Football is not girly. Cooking is girly. Running round, being loud, getting dirty and making a mess is not girly.
And no, Ancien Regime, that's not my point either. My point is that girls and boys should be free to like whatever the hell they please, without boys being called (BAN ME PLEASE)y for having a proclivity towards playing with tea-sets and wearing pink and without girls being told they're ugly/boyish/unfeminine because they might enjoy shouting a lot, getting covered in mud and climbing trees.
And finally, Lexite, I'm not going to get into an argument about why feminism is still necessary globally, so let's just drop that point, eh? And please, please, please stay off the implied rape apologism, because you are quite clearly proving my point. The girl/woman that is "forced" to have sex with her boyfriend, as you so abhorrently put it, was raped. End of.
To say that feminism is not needed, Lexite, even in the United States, is absurd, especially when it's coming from a woman. Well, maybe not feminism, but instead equalism(?); I hope that is what feminists ultimately strive for (as opposed to an exact antithesis of chauvinism), and if so, the difference between feminism and equalism would be merely in the terminology.
But sometimes I can't help but shake the feeling that it's not the media (or any collective) that is at fault when it comes to our ideas of attractiveness, but instead the harshness of our own judgments and expectations on an individual basis. Shouldn't the collective be the general sum of the individual? If the collective expects such and such, shouldn't most individuals also expect such and such? Maybe "me", "you", "him" and "her" are to blame, instead of "them".
But sometimes I can't help but shake the feeling that it's not the media (or any collective) that is at fault when it comes to our ideas of attractiveness, but instead the harshness of our own judgments and expectations on an individual basis. Shouldn't the collective be the general sum of the individual? If the collective expects such and such, shouldn't most individuals also expect such and such? Maybe "me", "you", "him" and "her" are to blame, instead of "them".
Feminists do not strive for equality, they want more. Yes I want eguality for women, but feminists are stupid about it. One feminist in a college book said that jobs that are too physically demanding for women are unfair, like a construction job for example. The stupid feminist basically suggested that the women be given those jobs, paied the same as men but not do the same physical work as men, or just get rid of the job all together since it is unfair. I am sorry, feminists in the US are just stupid most of the time.
The good majortiy of feminists that i see just hate men, end of story. I am for equality, I am not for making men out to be evil sexist pigs that only think of sex. Akuchi has shown on a number of posts that she in part agrees with this and shows a great dierespect for men. We do not need feminism when I see women taking advantage of men and treating men like worthless pigs.
The good majortiy of feminists that i see just hate men, end of story. I am for equality, I am not for making men out to be evil sexist pigs that only think of sex. Akuchi has shown on a number of posts that she in part agrees with this and shows a great dierespect for men. We do not need feminism when I see women taking advantage of men and treating men like worthless pigs.
I'm glad i'm not the only one that feels like this, i think it's hypocritical to just blame society and media about things which you can see everyday with your friends and sometimes yourself.
why does it? i think that we see this personality as a 'stereotype' and condemn things on either 'not following the norm' or being the 'norm' is ultimately more destructive. sure, it encourages 'incorrect' values from role models. i think it's just more important to have more diverse role models, rather than force personalities one way the other. personally i do think dora being untomboyish is a desecration to why she is loved, but that's because she's a childhood icon and i'm quite sentimental like that. and, yes, i agree that they are just appealing to commercial values, which is quite the impediment on the diversity i mentioned. a sad thing about this world is that everything will be interpreted under racial/sexual/feminist etc. contexts, so in the end, the natural messages that 'should' be sent are obscured by everything coming down to discrmination and commercially successful points of view.
this can also obviously be applied to girls having the right to be quiet, meek, dignified, elegant, pretty, and obsessed with pink and playing mommy (even though i would find living like that abhorrent lol) if thats their natural inclination. i think in a way for all the positive things 'being the "stereotypical" girl' gets, there are negative attributes applied as well...
Lots of fuss about nothing, I'd say. Most kids will prolly be like "oh Dora got older, cool" and then proceed to sing BACKPACK BACKPACK BACKPACK just the same. Why you'd even drag feminism and other kinds of ideals in this is beyond me.
Well, it isn't entirely, but it wouldn't be very wise to cause more drama about it.
Well, it isn't entirely, but it wouldn't be very wise to cause more drama about it.
You have proven a number of times that you have little or no respect for men at all. You said that if your boyfriend were to want a more intimate relationship and wanted to be more one on one that you would tell him to fuck off. You called a couple idiots for the boy telling the girl that he wanted to keep their relationship between the two of them and not having her going and dating other men. In order for a relationship to function properly, both sides have to listen to each other and do things for eachother. You come off as thinking that men should just be walked all over by women and time and have no say in anything, especially relationships. By these statements you have proven that you hate men. You think it is fine for a women to end a marriage and take half of the husbands money when that money wasnt even hers to begin with, she didnt put any money into that sum. If a woman doesnt put anything into a marriage she shouldnt get anything out. And just because a woman marries someone doesnt mean she should depend on him and quite her job, espically if there arent any kids or anything for her to quite a job for.
And why is it that I have to provide proof (and yes I can show you the name of the book, The woman was qouted in the book Radical Criminology by Michael J. Lynch and Raymond Michalowski) yet you never have. I am going to ignore each of your arguments unless you prove each and every one of them. I do provide proof to most of my statements, but you hardly ever do. I am not playing your game anymore.
And yes Mekkah, feminism did not need to be dragged into this, but Akuchi over here just loves to play the victim and loves to promote her ideas any chance she gets. This topic did not need feminism to be mentioned at all, the girls are already choosing this style without the Dora change since Dora is changing to fit the style.
Her head shrank =o Although it's pretty obvious that this is a cash grab. It's a desperate attempt to grab the children that have grown out of the original Dora the Explorer demographic and obviously to sell more merchandise. Most girls in their early tweens are not akuchi and the media-provided image of beauty is what they know. They want dolls like that. They'll buy dolls like that.
The media is not interested in the social well-being of the world nor will they ever in a capitalist world. It's a cycle. Media provides standard of beauty achievable only with Photoshop. Children hold their possessions and themselves to this standard. Advertisers that use the media to reach children create things to this standard.
I don't see any one of those things up and changing all of a sudden.
The media is not interested in the social well-being of the world nor will they ever in a capitalist world. It's a cycle. Media provides standard of beauty achievable only with Photoshop. Children hold their possessions and themselves to this standard. Advertisers that use the media to reach children create things to this standard.
I don't see any one of those things up and changing all of a sudden.
Lexite, this will be my last post responding to you in this thread and god help me should my resolve hold, permanently (though unlikely);
I don't take my partner for granted. I think things should be based on mutual trust and respect. If my dear boy doesn't respect/trust me enough to go out to the cinema/library/dinner/drinks with other men (and, since I'm bisexual - women, which would seriously limit my social circle) then personally I think we've no grounds for a relationship. I wouldn't tell him to do anything I'm not comfortable with him telling me to do. I love my partner dearly (however many ups and downs we may have, we do weather it in the end). I don't really see why you feel the need to try and define my relationship for me - or indeed what the fuck it has to do with this thread. Since you brought it up, though: tl;dr I'm feminist my partner identifies as feminist (or pro-feminist, or whatever), we're happy lets leave it at that.
The lawyer example I'll argue in another thread. However, had the gender roles been reversed, that would have been fine with me. I support the wealth being split pretty much evenly on divorce.
Seeing problems with the way the world works is not 'playing the victim', it is holding a different political viewpoint to your own. Nor, would I argue, is victim actually a dirty word. It's amazing how different people can think different things! Personally, and I know it's contentious, I think feminism is related to this, as I find feminism highly intersectional. Unfortunately I can't find a pdf for the book you mentioned, so I can't read it - but feminism is as diverse as women are, in all fairness. I don't seriously advocate the castration, butchering, and genocide (gendercide?) of men just because Solanas did in the 70s. Nor do I believe all men are reflective of say, the writings of your average rape/domestic violence promoting 4chan user, just because they happen to write it down.
Lexite - I'm never going to agree with your viewpoint, you're not going to agree with mine, how about we leave it there? If you really want to take it to PM, I'm sure you'll have no qualms doing so - I shan't bring up your past behaviour here, but you know what I am referring to.
I don't take my partner for granted. I think things should be based on mutual trust and respect. If my dear boy doesn't respect/trust me enough to go out to the cinema/library/dinner/drinks with other men (and, since I'm bisexual - women, which would seriously limit my social circle) then personally I think we've no grounds for a relationship. I wouldn't tell him to do anything I'm not comfortable with him telling me to do. I love my partner dearly (however many ups and downs we may have, we do weather it in the end). I don't really see why you feel the need to try and define my relationship for me - or indeed what the fuck it has to do with this thread. Since you brought it up, though: tl;dr I'm feminist my partner identifies as feminist (or pro-feminist, or whatever), we're happy lets leave it at that.
The lawyer example I'll argue in another thread. However, had the gender roles been reversed, that would have been fine with me. I support the wealth being split pretty much evenly on divorce.
Seeing problems with the way the world works is not 'playing the victim', it is holding a different political viewpoint to your own. Nor, would I argue, is victim actually a dirty word. It's amazing how different people can think different things! Personally, and I know it's contentious, I think feminism is related to this, as I find feminism highly intersectional. Unfortunately I can't find a pdf for the book you mentioned, so I can't read it - but feminism is as diverse as women are, in all fairness. I don't seriously advocate the castration, butchering, and genocide (gendercide?) of men just because Solanas did in the 70s. Nor do I believe all men are reflective of say, the writings of your average rape/domestic violence promoting 4chan user, just because they happen to write it down.
Lexite - I'm never going to agree with your viewpoint, you're not going to agree with mine, how about we leave it there? If you really want to take it to PM, I'm sure you'll have no qualms doing so - I shan't bring up your past behaviour here, but you know what I am referring to.