I hated the description of my blog again so I got rid of it. I'm going to make a new description.
I'm an artsy, witchy person, I love cats, I watch sci-fi like Babylon 5 and Star Trek, have some health issues, and blah blah, that's good for now...
One of my most recurring stressful dreams is that I’m stuck in a city around 50 miles or100 miles away with no transport back and I’m trying to call one or both of my parents or some other relatives to tell them where I am and they need to come pick me up but everytime I try to dial the phone I keep pressing the wrong numbers.
I’ll even try other peoples phones to see if I can make one work and it still doesn’t work I still can’t press the right numbers.
It’s a really frustrating dream.
Usually it gets resolved by me just happening to run into someone I know out in this strange city and they take me home. But its really not fun up to that point.
Damn I just wasted way too much time reading an article (and comments) about Maria Kang… aka the “Hot Mom” who posts her fitness pics on Faceook and asks “What’s your excuse?”
But it’s another thing where it’s a lot more complex than the surface.
And I think she’d have had a much more positive response if she framed things more as “What’s your excuse for not exercising?” than as “What’s your excuse for not looking this good?” Not that we are answerable to her or need an excuse for either, but it really is more a matter of how her attitude comes across, than what she is actually doing, what she looks like, or whatever.
I mean, what I’m saying is, no matter whether any of of us could, or even want to, look like her, being fit within our capabilities and our means is positive. Sure. I want to be as healthy as I CAN be, even if it’s not as healthy as her. It’d be nice if more people would be good at actual motivation, though- not shaming and angering.
And then of course there’s the problem with the idea that being healthy is what your value should be placed on is somehow inherently better than deciding your looks are what your value should be based on.
OK, so Lammily…
It’s a doll, based on the average proportions of 19 year old women.
I think the data came from the CDC or some other govt agency as to what those measurements were. How accurate, how many individuals measured, yeah, I have no idea but yes it sounds like actual “real women”.
I feel like I’m not as excited about this as I should be, because, well, averages are average. Average is not in itself diversity or even necessarily realism.
For example, a real-life woman with a 33-inch waist is not likely to have as flat of a stomach as this doll does.
This doll looks like a large-framed woman with low body fat, which is not what most “average” size women actually look like, even at the young age of 19. She does happen to be closer to what an “average” sized woman looks like than the old Barbie doll (people do tend to overstate the difference, though- more on this in a moment…) so there’s no doubt this is new and a change, and all that.
Is this doll:
A step in a good direction? Yes.
A thing to support? Yes.
The answer to body image issues? No.
The shape all dolls should be made in now? No.
And do I feel that this project got more attention than it otherwise would have because it is a man who designed it? I do.
Nothing against the guy himself. I’m not looking and saying he’s a man so this is automatically patronizing or whatever. I am just observing that it takes men getting concerned about women’s issues for things like this to get off the ground, and however good it is that this man is concerned, it just shows you how many are not.
Since she is supposed to be “average”, it’s good that Lammily will have brown hair and eyes instead of being a blue-eyed blonde like the original “normal Barbie” mock-up was. And I presume if she goes into more production runs she can have different skin colors. Hopefully different hair textures. I am sure having different skintones and hair would have increased the amount needed for the kickstarter. At this point, there is more than 3 times the money that was originally asked for, though, so I might think some options could be brought into play at this point, but I don’t know what would actually be involved. Of course if you made one at a time, you can make anything at all. Once you get into mass production, everything changes. But mass production, whether it’s making 1000 or 100,000 is something I don’t know about, so I don’t think I can just say.
Now, about Barbie… People will, without any mention of how they came up with their numbers, or suppositions, assert that Barbie would be 7 feet tall, unable to walk upright, yada yada yada.
First off, when you take a look at Barbie being 11.5” tall and Ken being 12” tall, it is fairly apparent they are 1:6 scale, which would make Barbie (who always used to have permanent high-heel feet) 5’9” and Ken 6 foot. If you figure those heels are 3 or 4 inches, then Barbie really was only 5’5” to 5’6”, but in perma-heels. This makes Barbie, at least the classic one, a mere 1 or 2 inches taller than Lammily is supposed to be, not 5 inches, and definitely not a foot and a half taller. Measurements of Barbie’s “assets” vary widely (but almost never show their math). Part of that is probably that there is the “old” Barbie, as well as the fairly recent revisions, and some people can’t keep track of which is which, and part of it I just don’t know what the issue is. Hell, some people probably estimate on looks and don’t even measure.
The unable to walk/stand stuff, that’s too complicated for this post.
Anyway, yeah, I think Lammily is good. But not the answer to much of anything, really, in the long run, until you get a lot more variety and diversity than just this. But you have to start somewhere, etc, except it’s not like this doll is the first attempt to do that!
Like I said, average is average. Average isn’t any type of extreme. Average and “ideal” are going to be related, really. So, yes, I’m like, it’s different and that’s great, but how different? This doll is NOT, I repeat, NOT FAT. And you know she’s going to be given to heavier children as though she is representative of them, when she’s not.
And the one thing I know is going to be seen as a total positive, that there could never be anything bad about, is that she is athletic. But that would have done nothing for my self-esteem as a child, because I was widely regarded as having no athletic ability whatsoever. Of course, I was skinny, so I didn’t need an “average” sized doll, anyway, I guess. If I’d been both fat and unco-ordinated I don’t know what I’d think, as a child, but I know as an adult that I don’t want to be told that the only way it’s acceptable for me to be bigger is if I’m “fit and strong”. Fit and strong can certainly be a good thing, when it’s a matter of choice, but as just an alternate expectation, it isn’t always good.
I just know that saying she’s “fun” because she’s posed with a ball, or in workout wear would have made me think of this doll as someone who would make fun of me, tease me, and try to hurt me in real life.