So I don't see why it's surprising that popular children's toys would represent sort of the platonic ideal of the human form. In reality most people's calves and hips do flare out to some extent, so it makes sense that those sorts of features would be accentuated when reduced to toy form.
> And they get fed foods with super exaggerated flavor profiles, e.g. ketchup
What? Since when is ketchup a kids food? That's a pretty widely popular condiment among all ages.
That is a myth. The truth is fairly complex but boils down to that one agency briefly proposed adopting rules that might if adopted have allowed things like pickle relish to "count as a vegetable" in certain contexts.
Ketchup was not explicitly listed in the proposed rule and the rule never took effect so we'll never know how local authorities might have used that bit of new flexibility.
TL;DR: Ketchup has never counted as a vegetable.
(Salsa, on the other hand...)
This holds true for male dolls too. I saw a great interview with Mark Hamel once about the evolution of Luke Skywalker dolls, which are now more WWE than a realistic portrayal of his character.
Look at the animation in Archer. Lana and Archer both have thick eyebrows, but Archer doesn't have any eyelashes.
Would clothes fall off a Barbie doll if you flipped it upside down? Do they fall off of Ken? I find that argument highly questionable.
In some senses, yes, we do. Children often like brightly colored clothes (and objects in general), or clothes with large, obvious representations of things they like.
Foods with strong uncomplicated flavor profiles also go over well. Mac & Cheese, Chicken tenders, etc.
The story used to be notable because it's a bit bizarre that a popular kid's toy was a carbon copy of a highly sexual cartoon character aimed at adults.
If a popular kid's toy were merely a carbon copy of an existing German cartoon character, alone, it would not really be notable at all.
I appreciate the sensitivity around putting labels on the character, especially on a professional setting such as HN, but it's a detail important to the story.
This one is not that different from Betty Boop. Many movies and cartoons had both childish and adult themes intermixed before the Hayes moral code kicked in.
acquired the rights to Bild Lilli in 1964
EDIT: I suppose I should mention that there were some issues resulting from the guy who made them changing jobs as well, but still, it's not too far outside that realm.
The post calls that doll "perverted", but I would rather apply that adjective to the people that think the doll is perverted...
It still force's the goal of beauty, success, fame, prestige, money.. far from the reality of life of most people in the world. There isnt a "chubby barbie" for instance.. its natural in kids to be happy with whatever/whoever they are, thats whats awesome in kids.
The only way to advance, evolve in this matter, is propably a reality where kids dont care about barbie anymore, and instead of impossible role models, they would choose something else, probably something where they are the ones creating and doing stuff, and not a external role-model of what they are supposed to be when they grow up, that can be the cause of a lot of frustration and impossibility to have a dialetic relation with their own reality, and try to improve it as a result.
Is it horrible for little girls to aspire to something more than the life that they were born into? In many parts of the world, women aren't even allowed to drive. Should Barbie just reflect the status quo? I don't see anything wrong with showing little girls that it's possible for them to one day become an astronaut or President of the United States. School teacher or veterinarian Barbie is also a huge improvement over housewife or fashion model Barbie. I would call that evolution.
> There isnt a "chubby barbie" for instance.
Wouldn't an overweight Barbie be promoting an unhealthy lifestyle?
Relevant chart: http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21647347-treatin...
The US hasn't had that in more than 100 years.