another signpost on the road to oblivion

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:54 am

.....this just can't be a good thing. Commentary, anyone( I'll flesh out my own thinking after work if the thread has any legs):

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Lates ... ales-slump

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:49 pm

The sales slump could be because of this.

Maybe little girls still like to fantasize that they want to look like the old unrealistic skinny Barbie and not the new, more accurately proportioned Barbie, so sales have slumped because don't they're not interested anymore. Body image is always a girl worry. However, the new one does have a nicer rear end.

Your same worry about the change in toys is also reflected in boy's toys too.

Angry Face Lego People

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:17 pm

I guess it's hard for me to estimate the psychological impact of distressed faces on Lego toys, but there might be some bad come of that, but to me, the idea of pushing Goth fashion onto lttle kids(let's face it, these aren't dolls for tweens, teens or adults, one would hope) is just, to this old-fashioned type, a sign off the ever-ongoing coarsening of American culture. Another example, seemingly trivial, was a billboard along Rte 202 in Northern Delaware proclaiming that a certain motorcycle dealer "Kicks Ass!". Now, am I shocked by such language, or offended? No. But, it is a publicly displayed use of language that wouldn't have been tolerated by the public as few as 20 years back. I'm not, I think, being prudish in feeling that as we bring 'normal' society and culture down to the level of 'Jersey Shore', etc, we are losing something valuable as a nation. The country that brought the world everything from Jazz to Broadway musicals to Abstract Expressionism, Pop Art and modern dance in our dominant century(the 20th), is churning out dreck at all levels here in the 21st, and that, my friends, is what I mean about a signpost.......

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 5:11 pm

See this is the point I have made many times when people point out the “progress” we have made over the years…with the good…always comes the bad.

It's not possible to have only good social change, once you start tampering with it.

vision · Post by **vision** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:40 pm

This thread is misnamed. It should read something like "Girls are leading the way to an awesome future."

You mean little girls aren't interested in a 50+ year old idea that was pretty terrible to begin with? That's the road to oblivion? Little girls like colors other than pink? *GASP!* They have imaginations that don't revolve around an outdated and problematic stereotype? Oh Lordy! What ever shall we do! SAVE THE CHILDREN!

Oblivion. Psssh. RUBBISH. These dolls are very creative and fact that girls are attracted to them rather than the status quo, horribly homogenous and boring Barbie is a sign of great things to come. Doesn't Barbie represent the typical corporate and social interests being forced on children? And little girls rejection of that is somehow... bad? Are you guys insane? It's beautiful.

flip · Post by **flip** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:51 pm

Who thinks more highly of themselves? People who think they are just highly evolved apes at the mercy of their genetics, or those who believe they will take on the very nature of God one day? See, I'm not convinced all the founding fathers were devout Christian, but they did understand the value of religion in a free society. That's why they didn't say we are a Christian nation, they welcomed all religions, because they called people to live upright and moral. That's not to say people don't get haywire, but still in the bigger scope, the only way we can remain completely free is if we hold ourselves to the highest of standards. You cannot control somebody who thinks very highly of themselves, and it always irks me when I talk to people talking crap, they will revolt, yadda yadda. The fact of the matter is all they have to do is become great. That is why Mason's allow all religions, but only the religious, because they know that high morality is imperative to secure freedom.

". . . Virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone that renders us invincible. These are the tactics we should study. If we lose these, we are conquered, fallen indeed . . . so long as our manners and principles remain sound, there is no danger."
Patrick Henry

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:18 am

you are wrong about the Masons, Flip. Sorry, but they do NOT take all religions(notably Catholics), nor is overt religiousity a necessity.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 6:01 am

About the Goth doll, you have to understand one thing...the parents are the ones buying them for their daughters.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 9:31 am

yes, Woody, that is exactly the understanding that disturbs me......as in, WTF are they thinking?

flip · Post by **flip** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 10:31 am

Historically that was true Slick, seems even they are not immune

EDIT: There is a reason for that too. The pursuit of high morality based on perfection is unattainable if God Himself, who is perfect, is the mark. So, each person continually strives to get better. If high morality is non-religious, it cause those to look down on and critically judge their peers. Masonry, when it was based on faith caused people to become goodmen and to lift others, the Masonry of today is for goodmen to rule those lesser.

EDIT: Also, considering the long-standing feud between Catholics and Masonry, I'd tend to think it was the other way around.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 10:32 am

I was thinking of bringing out a line of slut dolls with only lingerie for clothes. Kinda like you see in MTV vids. Bet I could make a sweet penny off them. I mean who doesn't want their daughter to grow up to be a slut?

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 10:35 am

I tend to agree with vision on this one, slick. The fact the "classic" Barbie isn't selling well illustrates that kids and parents are rejecting conformity to mainstream ideas about beauty. I call that a positive.

The fact that the alternative-of-choice right now are "monster"-themed is just a reflection of pop culture, which is pretty heavy into zombies and such. I see no ethical problem with it.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 10:54 am

I think Goths are offended by the mainstream trying 'mainstream' their purposefully alternative image.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 11:07 am

That's true.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 1:49 pm

lol ..ppht.. "goth" was pushed into the mainstream and became fashionable back the mid 80's thanks to This guy.

He pretty much single-handedly made goth what it is today.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 4:18 pm

vision wrote:This thread is misnamed. It should read something like "Girls are leading the way to an awesome future."

You mean little girls aren't interested in a 50+ year old idea that was pretty terrible to begin with? That's the road to oblivion? Little girls like colors other than pink? *GASP!* They have imaginations that don't revolve around an outdated and problematic stereotype? Oh Lordy! What ever shall we do! SAVE THE CHILDREN!

Oblivion. Psssh. RUBBISH. These dolls are very creative and fact that girls are attracted to them rather than the status quo, horribly homogenous and boring Barbie is a sign of great things to come. Doesn't Barbie represent the typical corporate and social interests being forced on children? And little girls rejection of that is somehow... bad? Are you guys insane? It's beautiful.

I agree. Why stay with something that was popular with little girls in the 1950's? Tastes and attitudes change. The Goth Dolls are no worse, or different, than those Bratz Dolls that are still popular. They represent an attitude rebellion for all those little girls out there trying to be different from their parents. Boomers liked Barbie, kids now like something different. And girls haven't always stuck with gender typical toys since the sexual revolution.

Foil, weird dolls aren't new. We had the Munsters and the Adams Family Dolls. Those were pretty out there, as are these newer gems. If someone comes up with something strange, someone else will probably buy it. That's the free market at work.

There's no accounting for taste though.

woodchip wrote:I was thinking of bringing out a line of slut dolls with only lingerie for clothes. Kinda like you see in MTV vids. Bet I could make a sweet penny off them. I mean who doesn't want their daughter to grow up to be a slut?

You'd probably sell them to those same idiot parents that stick their young girls into child beauty pageants.

vision · Post by **vision** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 11:50 pm

woodchip wrote:About the Goth doll, you have to understand one thing...the parents are the ones buying them for their daughters.

But if that is what the kid wants, then so what? It's not like Barbie is less of a slut than all the other fashion dolls. Maybe they should sell dolls in burqas? Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing fashion dolls with saris, hijabs, kimonos -- and sarongs for male fashion dolls! And maybe some brown dolls while we are at it.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Jul 20, 2013 5:06 pm

vision wrote:
woodchip wrote:About the Goth doll, you have to understand one thing...the parents are the ones buying them for their daughters.
But if that is what the kid wants, then so what?

You'll make the "ideal" parent.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Jul 20, 2013 5:12 pm

another of those unsettling moments when I both understand Woody's point and agree completely.

Parenting isn't, or ought never be, about 'they want X, so give X to them'.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat Jul 20, 2013 5:46 pm

woodchip wrote:
vision wrote:
woodchip wrote:About the Goth doll, you have to understand one thing...the parents are the ones buying them for their daughters.
But if that is what the kid wants, then so what?
You'll make the "ideal" parent.

ya because giving a child everything they want has always been a successful formula for parenting

vision · Post by **vision** » Sat Jul 20, 2013 10:51 pm

I guess I was wrong about CUDA and Slick being some of the brightest in this E&C forum because you all fell for Woody's selective quoting. OMG did you read that?! VIsion said all children should get whatever they want all the time!!!! OUTRAGE!

Let me put it back into context for you fools. If a parent has already decided to buy their child a fashion doll, it's doesn't make a whole lot of difference which doll it is. If the child want the goth-monster doll, so what? No really, please tell me so what?

You all seem so outraged at this goofy fashion doll, yet not a single person here has even questioned why little girls should be getting fashion dolls in the first place, so I'll be the first. Should they get a fashion doll? If I had a little girl of my own I would persuade her to take interest in something more meaningful, like sports and books and games -- not something that emphasizes female frivolity. It's well known that Barbie embodies a ideal unattainable to most women and for years the doll has been intertwined with destructive social pressures. This has caused great problems for everyone who isn't a plastic surgeon or own a cosmetics company. Even the less-slutty Barbies tend to fall far off the mark.

So if you are going to be one of those parents who buy their little girl a fashion doll instead of a chemistry set (e.g. you and your parents), then you might want to at least question the merits of the individual doll lines. If you could get past the knee-jerk reaction of "ugh, what a weird doll" you can see that Monster High is probably the better choice -- unless you want your little girl to grow up to be vapid, materialistic, and full of the body-image problems that come packaged with every Barbie. Is that what you want for you sweetie? The apple of your eye? The goth-monster-dolls are abstract, which is probably healthier for impressionable minds. They are colorful and very creative. It's a step in the right direction if you ask me. And as far as sex appeal goes, well they are monsters. If that's what you are into, then cool, but I'm not into girls with green skin and fangs. And if your little girl wants green skin and fangs, maybe you should indulge her if you are worried about her dating at too young an age, haha.

Besides, fashion dolls just wind up naked, shorn, and covered in marker in the bottom of the toy box anyway. Big deal.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sun Jul 21, 2013 2:24 pm

CUDA wrote:ya because giving a child everything they want has always been a successful formula for parenting

You're missing vision's point CUDA. Good parents don't give their children everything they want. But good parents don't force their children to play with toys they don't want either. Instead, they should nurture their child's interests with the toys they do give them, whether they're different from expected norms, or not. If a girl would rather have a Goth Doll instead of a Barbie, what's wrong with that? Barbie dolls aren't great girl's toys either. They give girls an unrealistic expectation of body image, which has fostered quite a few cases of bulimic girls with self esteem issues. If a girl would rather have a chemistry set instead of a doll, what's wrong with that either? I didn't get everything I wanted as a child. My parents weren't overflowing with money and didn't give me everything I wanted. But they were foresighted enough to cater to the types of toys I did want. I was never interested in playing with dolls or doing dress up. I always wanted masculine toys, like chemistry sets and erector sets. I liked building and creating things and art toys, not playing doll house like what was usually expected of good little girls in the 1950's. There's nothing wrong with giving a child something different. What is important is that parents teach their children to respect others, especially those who are different from themselves. THAT is what is lacking with today's parenting IMHO.

If you're going to gripe about toys, why not complain about the plethora of violent toys being marketed to boys? I swear, every ad I see on TV for boy's toys seems to have some type of pretend violence associated with it. Is that good for boys either? Kill this, kill that. Blow up this or blow up that. I see this as a far worse problem than weird Goth dolls being marketed to girls.

vision · Post by **vision** » Sun Jul 21, 2013 3:16 pm

In addition to the above, parents often give little children choices when the choices are benign. You are getting a vegetable with dinner, do you want peas, corn, or carrots? Do you want to wear the red or yellow shirt with your overalls today? Do you want the toy firetruck, sports car, or backhoe? Same rule applies to fashion dolls.

tunnelcat wrote:If you're going to gripe about toys, why not complain about the plethora of violent toys being marketed to boys?

Indeed. Not only am I against guns, I'm against toy guns and video game violence. Shooting a semi-sentient robot with a laser (Descent) is the most violence I can tolerate in a game. I would apply my rules for girls to boys and emphasize toys/leisure that are creative rather than destructive, even if it is pretend destruction.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Jul 21, 2013 3:44 pm

You guys are focusing on one single toy slick pointed out, instead of the main point…that being the coarsening of the society.

I happen to agree with the notion that there is nothing wrong with Goth toys, hell when I was a kid “monsters” were quite popular, so were some disturbing fairy tales.

But, I do agree with his general point, and believe whole heartedly that liberal Hollywood is the vanguard in such things. (among other things)

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun Jul 21, 2013 4:18 pm

thanks for picking up my core message, Spidey. I suppose entertainment plays a role, along with a host of other factors, but what I see is what we chemists call a 'cascade effect', wherein mechanisms feed each other to an end point. Therefore entertainment sells coarse ideals to a coarse and shallow society, and back and forth. While you make a point to blame 'liberal' entertainment, every bit as much to blame, IMHO, is the overall demeaning of higher education from conservatives dating back to Reagan, and the conservative view of 'high culture'(eg: fine arts, theater, dance, poetry, etc) as the haven for 'liberal' and hence evil ideas. That sort of tirade goes back to Spriro Agnew, at least in my memory framework. As I say, a cascade effect to an inevitable end point, one which doesn't bode well for the larger society at that end point.......

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Jul 21, 2013 5:05 pm

Pop culture, Rock & Roll and the “youth culture” did far more to kill “high culture” than any conservatives could ever dream of, and quite frankly…I don’t miss it.

In fact, I wish Ballet would fall off a cliff, and take opera with it.

My problem is with a culture that has become rude, loud, jaded, disrespectful…and has completely lost any sense of etiquette and protocol, not changing tastes.

vision · Post by **vision** » Sun Jul 21, 2013 8:46 pm

Spidey wrote:My problem is with a culture that has become rude, loud, jaded, disrespectful…and has completely lost any sense of etiquette and protocol, not changing tastes.

Well that certainly isn't a problem in the United States where I hear lots of complaints about political correctness. So are we too sensitive or too rude? I can't quite follow you guys.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Mon Jul 22, 2013 7:28 am

It can be tough for someone in your position, vision. Spidey is absolutely right.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Mon Jul 22, 2013 8:41 am

I agree with Spidey, as well. I'll even agree with the sentiment about opera.

...Back to the original post, though, I fail to see a connect between the point about society becoming crass, and doll styles. Slick, are you suggesting that the popularity of goth culture is indicative of society somehow gone wrong?

Youth "rebel" culture has looked different in every generation, but it's largely the same underlying forces. Would you have felt the same if Mattel had decided to make "Hippie Barbie"?

Heretic · Post by **Heretic** » Mon Jul 22, 2013 9:44 am

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:09 pm

vision wrote:
Spidey wrote:My problem is with a culture that has become rude, loud, jaded, disrespectful…and has completely lost any sense of etiquette and protocol, not changing tastes.
Well that certainly isn't a problem in the United States where I hear lots of complaints about political correctness. So are we too sensitive or too rude? I can't quite follow you guys.

Politically Correct Euphemisms are not used in the context of being “polite” they are used in the context of being “political” as the name would suggest, otherwise they would be called “politely correct” or some such.

From my point of view the same group of people who are inclined to use Political Correctness, is also the same group that will shout you down and call you names, if they don’t like your opinions.

IE: Rude

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Mon Jul 22, 2013 3:13 pm

Spidey wrote:
vision wrote:
Spidey wrote:My problem is with a culture that has become rude, loud, jaded, disrespectful…and has completely lost any sense of etiquette and protocol, not changing tastes.
Well that certainly isn't a problem in the United States where I hear lots of complaints about political correctness. So are we too sensitive or too rude? I can't quite follow you guys.
Politically Correct Euphemisms are not used in the context of being “polite” they are used in the context of being “political” as the name would suggest, otherwise they would be called “politely correct” or some such.

From my point of view the same group of people who are inclined to use Political Correctness, is also the same group that will shout you down and call you names, if they don’t like your opinions.

IE: Rude

FACT

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Jul 22, 2013 3:46 pm

Spidey wrote:Pop culture, Rock & Roll and the “youth culture” did far more to kill “high culture” than any conservatives could ever dream of, and quite frankly…I don’t miss it.

In fact, I wish Ballet would fall off a cliff, and take opera with it.

My problem is with a culture that has become rude, loud, jaded, disrespectful…and has completely lost any sense of etiquette and protocol, not changing tastes.

you want ballet and opera to fall off cliffs, yet mourn the loss of etiquette and protocol......hmmmm.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Jul 22, 2013 3:47 pm

CUDA wrote:
Spidey wrote:
vision wrote:
Spidey wrote:My problem is with a culture that has become rude, loud, jaded, disrespectful…and has completely lost any sense of etiquette and protocol, not changing tastes.
Well that certainly isn't a problem in the United States where I hear lots of complaints about political correctness. So are we too sensitive or too rude? I can't quite follow you guys.
Politically Correct Euphemisms are not used in the context of being “polite” they are used in the context of being “political” as the name would suggest, otherwise they would be called “politely correct” or some such.

From my point of view the same group of people who are inclined to use Political Correctness, is also the same group that will shout you down and call you names, if they don’t like your opinions.

IE: Rude
FACT

agreed. For instance, who of us, in his/her youth would imagine that some lout would shout 'liar' at a sitting President during the State of the Union?

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Mon Jul 22, 2013 4:18 pm

callmeslick wrote:
CUDA wrote:
Spidey wrote:
vision wrote:
Spidey wrote:My problem is with a culture that has become rude, loud, jaded, disrespectful…and has completely lost any sense of etiquette and protocol, not changing tastes.
Well that certainly isn't a problem in the United States where I hear lots of complaints about political correctness. So are we too sensitive or too rude? I can't quite follow you guys.
Politically Correct Euphemisms are not used in the context of being “polite” they are used in the context of being “political” as the name would suggest, otherwise they would be called “politely correct” or some such.

From my point of view the same group of people who are inclined to use Political Correctness, is also the same group that will shout you down and call you names, if they don’t like your opinions.

IE: Rude
FACT
agreed. For instance, who of us, in his/her youth would imagine that some lout would shout 'liar' at a sitting President during the State of the Union?

I agree. it shouldn't have happened.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon Jul 22, 2013 4:24 pm

That was indeed a protocol error, in the worse way…even if correct.

Edit...Actually the proper term is “breach of protocol”.

And please forgive me if I can't for the life of me find the connection between etiquette & protocol and ballet & opera.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Jul 22, 2013 4:37 pm

Spidey, it works like this:
Ballet, dance of any sort, opera, painting, sculpture, classical, jazz and other 'deep' musical forms, require of both participants and audience the development of discipline, development of a knowledge base, and a certain reverance for the medium and respect for practitioners. In other words, they require both a certain strict etiquette and a level of decorum, along with necessitating forming a strict protocol to master the given discipline.From the only example which I can personally attest to, proficiency in visual arts requires a learning protocol which includes study of the Older Masters, and developing one's craft slowly, over time. At one time, virtually all students were, at the very least, exposed to much of this culture. In finer public and most prep schools, participation in at least one of them was de riguer. In fact, come to think of it, a rigorous education, one which emphasizes critical thought and intelligent debate requires both etiquette and protocol to function as well. Thus, when we dumb down our society, and that dumbing down extends to the educational process,a the loss of fine arts education as the first casualty of 'funding' cuts, the loss of artistic disciplines leads, IMHO, to the loss of self-discipline in the adult populace.And, that self-discipline is what maintains both 'decorum' and 'protocols'.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon Jul 22, 2013 5:17 pm

Nice lecture…but I already knew that…wrong context.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Jul 22, 2013 5:19 pm

but, is it, Spidey? Or, maybe, does it all fit together?

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon Jul 22, 2013 5:27 pm

My concern is with the loss of the two in general, not how it applies to those two things in particular.