This is he-man

[McBear]

I've just seen (on fb- sorry) a picture with an image of barbie and he-man. Underneath barbie, it has the caption 'This is barbie. Throughout the years she has been the centre of much controversy because feminists claim she represents an unrealistic, unhealthy and unfair standard of beauty leading to a 'crisis' for young girls and their self esteem.

Underneath he-man it says 'This is he-man'

I'll try and find a link to the picture but it did get me thinking... He man is the 'epitome of manliness' as are a lot of comic book heroes/boys dolls. (Not including weedy captain America and Peter Parker, though obviously they 'improve' when they are handsome, tall and muscular) Why are they not seen as damaging to young boys?

I, personally, think it's because of the pressure society puts on women and them stereotypically seen as weaker. Women are taught to compete for male attention, men compete for jobs/sports and therefore success.

It does raise a good point for me though that men are shown the same ideals but do not feel the same pressure to comply.

With or without the wording at the top, why have the comparison? Don't get me wrong comparisons are good for pointing out inequalities but this meme isn't pointing out inequalities. Both are objectifications of their sex. Why just not have He-man in that case speaking for himself (so to speak).

The only reason Barbie is there is to highlight that women react strongly to that image, why aren't they doing the same for He-man?

Having said all that I agree with Treats in that it's easier and more common to diss what girls may like (regardless of whether it's Barbie or baking or crafty stuff tbh) whereas boys images are called superheroes which immediately puts them in the bracket to be revered. Men and boys are already happy to disparage Barbie and her like because they are aimed at girls not because of any damage that they perceive. What girls like are just not worthy of their attention

This is a ridiculous thread, on which I am going to post a ridiculous comment.

He Man is a superhero. He is not human. He is from another planet. He can throw mountains around. He can turn a household pet into a cryptozoological beast.

His sister She Ra is also a superhero. She too is from another planet and can throw mountains. She also has a superhero body shape. And unlike He Man, she does so while wearing a tiny skirt.

Barbie, apart from occasional departures into turning into a beautiful swan in certain sets, is supposed to be an ordinary woman who mostly has pool parties and goes on bike rides with her numerous younger sisters.

Not really, Dad, in all of those the change is in the context of "real life" not an outside, supernatural agent.

It has nothing to do with supernatural agency Vs real life. Performance is a thing that can be abstracted out of the body. It can stay in the body, prompting steroid use (he-man got THAT body from hard work in a gym?) or it can move to fit inanimate objects like cars (drive too fast), gadgets (batman/'boys and their toys'), sports, or whatever.

The point is it does not need to be as grounded to the real world in the way female body image must be, because its an out of body experience. That is exactly why adolescent boys die, reality catches up to the way they use their bodies. A super hero is not utterly disbelieved just because its 'magic', its the ideals that are absorbed and expressed, in real and destructive ways.

Should boys buy into Clark Kent instead of Superman or G.I Joe? I would say they would be healthier if they did... but they don't, that's the point, not the unreality of what they buy into. If boys buy into unhealthy masculine stereotypes it does not matter if those stereotypes juggle planets or, as superman was originally and somewhat less fantastically, get injured by bullets, the effect is the same. Anyway, Barbie with her impossible figure and impossible ability to transform into anyone from President to Astronaut to Party Girl seems a ripping good fantasy to me.

So a "ripping good fantasy" for a boy equals superpowers - something which is actually fantastical and beyond reality. Whereas a "ripping good fantasy" for a woman is the amazing idea that she might become a president or an astronaut - oh and maybe go to a party too.

I'm sure there's irony in there somewhere but, at the moment, I am having difficulty separating it from the notion of "sick joke." No doubt someone will be along in a minute to mansplain the difference for me.

Rosa, do you not think her body image is fantasy? I think it would be hard to work both as an astronaut and a president. I think most voters would be annoyed that barbie would spend too much time out of office.

OMG! The level this thread is pitched at now, is girls give you germs.... bless you King, you funny little man.

lol I thought I'd lighten it up with a joke. People linking barbie to real life is so strange.
I'm above average height by the way

Because c'mon. Barbie's body is total male gaze fodder.

No, I distinctly remember undressing a Barbie and being very disappointed. That was back when I was about 7... or perhaps 17... its so long ago I forget which.

buffy, i love your water aid analogy and am gonna steal that one.

although still eye roll at people that think barbie is some sort of important feminist issue

Surely Barbie is a symbol of an important feminist issue? The culture surrounding our young girls and the expectations placed on them.

I don't know about Barbie being an astronaut or president either. All the ones I see in the shops are vapid party girls.

although still eye roll at people that think barbie is some sort of important feminist issue

Not sure it is really, more of a symptom of how little things have really changed. How little is expected or how much depending on your viewpoint of girls now.

In what way Buffy?

In what way is it's packaging of femaleness a feminist issue? What inparticular about its packaging?

I don't remember having any wish to look like Barbie when I was young (and I still don't!). We used to have Barbie v Action Man fights with my Brother and Barbie used to get to drive Action Man's vehicles. I think that the female airhead, stick thin, cheap, so called celebrities we see so much of on TV are a much worse influence on young girls. (there's alot of bad male rolemodels for boys too)

I wanted to look like barbie so i had surgery to wire open my eyes. I haven't blinked for over a decade. I have had my knee joints fixed with steel rods. I have had my hip mobility reduced to just flex ion and extension. I'm saving up to have my fingers stitched together.

I agree that there are bad male role models, but, and this is I think the crux of it, there are so many good male role models around, so many that you don't even notice them and very few female ones (that are known to the general public).

If you want to show your sons good male role models, you can open the paper or turn on the TV and you will easily find loads. If you want to show your children good female role models, you have to look much harder for them. Which is why things like Barbie are worse as symbols of femaleness, because there are far fewer positive symbols about, so it's less diluted.

This is probably why female role models are held to a much higher standard than male ones? Maybe?

Should a doll or a cartoon need to be anatomically correct though. The hip joints and leg position are probably more down to manufacturing and cost of production than anything else.
Most cartoon aren't anatomically correct. I'd think it would weird to aspire to be a doll. I suppose people have changed themselves to look like cats, so each to their own.
I think she is impeccably groomed because she is a cartoon, marge Simpson rarely has a bad hair day.

Being undimensional straight up and down must be the cheapest to design and produce. I don't really see it as really being an issue.

Buffy - I give a massive shit about female role models. I just don't think that this is a massive issue when there are so many more obvious concerns in 'real life'.