Don’t forget (as I’m sure you won’t 
, that next Monday, September 1st is Labor Day, and thus we do not have class that morning!
For Wednesday, September 3rd, please do the following:
- Read “The Writing Process” from Frame Work (be prepared to discuss and/or respond to writing prompts in class). I emailed this reading to you on Friday, so if you didn’t get it, email me and let me know, and I’ll resend.
- Also – go to A Writer’s Reference web site, sign in and, if prompted, be sure you list my email address (kscotta@gmu.edu) so that I will receive the results of your work. Once you are at the main menu, click on Writing Exercises and complete the following exercises: E-ex C1-1 and E-ex C2-1.
For Friday, September 5th, please read the following:
- Read Chapter 1, section on “Active Reading” (pp 6-22) in Common Culture: Reading and Writing about American Popular Culture (required book for class). For your blog response, due on Monday, September 8th by no later than 7 a.m., respond to any one set of questions at the bottom of page 21 of your reading. Be sure that you back up your response with examples and/or evidence from the text (a quote or small passage that exemplifies your point).
21 responses so far ↓
vixers // August 27, 2008 at 5:08 pm |
Thank you thank you! I’m on it!
See you tomorrow!
katiebug13 // August 27, 2008 at 10:52 pm |
okay, I understand.
Kristin Scott // August 28, 2008 at 7:04 am |
As stated on the course syllabus (under course description):
Blog Response & other Online Assignments: Each week, students will be required to post on an online class blog discussion forum. The assignments will vary; but each week, you will be expected to engage in conversations with one another, so that the blog truly becomes a place for collaborative dialogue about your writing process. Your blog and other online responses will count as 30% of your final grade. More information about what is expected is posted on the blog under “About Class Blog.” Please note that I will NOT grade late responses; but I will be dropping your lowest grade.
You will also complete occasional online exercises at a companion website for our book, A Writer’s Reference. In these assignments you will be thinking about the reading, preparing for class discussion, and practicing various writing and pre-writing techniques. These online exercises will be graded on a check-only basis—if you complete the work on time, you will receive full credit; if you don’t, you will receive no credit. You must, however, create an account in order for the results to be sent to me.
bheflin // September 3, 2008 at 10:29 pm |
If Motz is right that Barbie represents an outdated and potentially detrimental image of women’s lives, why do you think the doll continues to sell more and more successfully every year?
I think that Motz is both right and wrong. She made the argument that Barbie is outdated and only keeps up with the style of the Baby Boomer generation. Contrary to this, I would argue that Barbie acts more as a trend setter. This can clearly be seen by considering that most girls go out to buy the “latest” outfits in the toy store to give her doll trendy style. But it also is evident by looking at the mere simple name this doll possesses, “barbie”. In today’s culture, we refer to a barbie doll as someone who is “dressed to impress”, and even perhaps too stylish and trendy. So I would disagree that the barbie doll is outdated and antiqued.
But I would agree with Motz when she says it would be detrimental to young girl’s lives. I would submit that most young girls view their dolls as holding a very “hip” image, and so they strive to be just like their doll. But sadly I would argue that the doll lives in a different reality than our own. So to strive to be like a doll is to take away from who you truly are and what you can truly become and achieve.
nmalliar // September 4, 2008 at 2:40 pm |
I believe Motz is wrong on his assumption that Barbie is a detrimental image of womens lives today.
Based on information from the reading, it is clear to see that there is no way that playing with a Barbie doll could have a negative effect on the future of a young girl. As stated in the text, miniature creations give young children a feeling of control over the environment do to the fact that the real world is so large.
In paragraph six on page 17, it also states that through interactions with the Ken doll, young girls can learn about relationships with men.
Girls can also learn how to act in social situations by acting in them when she plays the rols of all her different dolls. She can imitate conversations and make the dolls interact between each other.
Furthermore, I dont think that Barbie would be so well advertised and so highly appraised if she did promote anything negative for young women.
mxwilchek // September 4, 2008 at 5:04 pm |
Question 1:
In my opinion I think fashion dolls like Barbie allow children to step foot in an adult’s shoes. Children are given the oppertunity to decide wat is appropriate and suitbale for certain activites. According to Motz, “The Barbie doll teaches a child to conform to fashion in her consupmtion. She learns that each activity requires appropriate attire and outfits that may at first glance appear to be interchangeable are slightly different from one another.” Like Motz says, children can learn what’s appropriate in what situation at a very early age. And now that I’m thinking about it, this could be why females tend to mature faster than males. Hmmmm….
In my opinion the difference between a fashion doll and a baby doll is immense. As I said earlier that fashion doll explores what’s approperiate in what situation. Compared to a baby doll, allows the individual to explore motherhood. So overall both type of dolls are “healthy.” I don’t think one is more “healthier” than the other. They just depend what the individual wants to explore first or what the parent chooses their child to explore first, motherhood or independant leisure activity.
katiebug13 // September 4, 2008 at 6:04 pm |
If Motz is right that Barbie represents an outdated and potentially detrimental image of women’s lives, why do you think the doll continues to sell more and more successfully every year?
It is hard to judge if Barbie is an outdated and potentially detrimental image of women’s lives because it is very easy to see both sides of the argument. It is my belief that Motz is both right and wrong about Barbie.
Motz is right in saying that Barbie portrays a very old and steriotyed image of women in that she must always have the latest trend or the best clothes. This, in itself, is a contradiction. How can Barbie portray an outdated image when she always has the newest clothes? It is not the clothes that create the image, but the fact that Barbie, as stated in paragraph seven on page seventeen, implies that “she can only be happy if only she wears the right clothes and owns the right products” this teaches young girls that the key to being popular and happy is to buy into the consumer attitude of most Americans. Another negative aspect of Barbie is the physical image she portrays. If young children, girls specifically, believe that Barbie is the epitomy of beauty then they have extremely misguided views of what makes a person beautiful and unique. At a young age many young girls may strive to look like Barbie because they look up to her as a rolemodel, when in fact it is physically impossible to look like Barbie. What it comes down to is that in some ways Barbie is telling young girls that in order to be beautiful they must be tall, leggy, blonde, and impossibly skinny. This image does not do much in helping children understand that what makes a person beautiful is not all about how they look, but very much about what makes them unique from other people. Not everyone is tall or skinny or has long legs, but instead of being shown only one image of “beauty” children should be taught to celebrate the differences in others.
The thing is that despite all of this, Barbie can be good for young children as well. As written in paragraph three on page seventeen in the book, children enjoy playing with miniature things like Barbie dolls because it gives them a sense of control. In a world in which everything appears several sizes too big and everything is moving at such a fast pace it is nice for a child to have even a little control over anything. Playing with their Barbies also helps children begin to understand how to interact with other people, thus building social skills. It also helps that Barbie is so versitile, she can do practically anything from being an astronaut to a vet. This is probably why Barbie does so well on the market. Parents think that they are helping their children by introducing them to such an influence. And in ways, they are. Even though it is my belief that Barbie does more harm than help for children, she does set an example to young children, especially girls, that nothing is impossible and that they can do anything they set their hearts to.
chkimi2 // September 6, 2008 at 10:28 am |
To what extent do you think Thorstein Veblen’s comments on status and consumerism in American society still apply today? Do you agree with Motz that Barbie contributes to the promotion of “Conspicuous Consumption”?
I think that Veblen’s comments of society still apply today because if you just look around in a group of people, you will see that there are people who buy certain things that show they are somewhat wealthy. For example, when I walk through the mall or a crowded street I see at least one woman with an expensive designer bag. Do these women really need the expensive $1000 bag? No they don’t need it. They just have it to show others that they can have the money to buy nice and expensive things. As stated in paragraph 9, it says Veblen wrote that we buy objects not because we need them but because we want others to know we can afford them.
Barbie contributes to the promotion of conspicuous consumption because little kids want their Barbie to have everything nice. They want the Barbie to have a nice sports car, a big plane, a huge Barbie house, and tons of clothes. They don’t actually need to buy these things for the Barbie, but they do anyway. Also, the Barbie itself is an item of conspicuous consumption because someone who can afford a lot, will maybe 4 or 5 barbies just because they want that many.
sohaiba // September 6, 2008 at 1:06 pm |
In response to that same question, I believe that consumerism is still a factor in American societies of today, but not to such an extent. Corporate fat cats prey on this mindset to rake in millions in profit each year. On the contrary, the changes in society in the past few years, specifically referring to the internet and increased economic problems, have left many with less disposable income and more infomation on pricing and an item’s overall worth. Online selling sites, such as eBay and Craig’s List, give indivisuals the ability to sell used goods instead of disposing of it. Consumerism is a disease that affects the unbelievably rich percentage of the population.
As to my opinion on barbies contribution to “conspicuous consumption”; truthfully, I think Motz ideology is irrational. Look at the facts she writes, “(veblen 60-131),(Zinsser, “Barbie” 73)”, it resembles bible referrences. Does she truly believe that Barbie has such an influence? As stated in paragraph 1, the market for Barbie is 3-11 years. Kids in this age group have no disposable income and are dependant on their parents for their provisions. Thus the decision to buy Barbie rests on the shoulders of their parents, and improper parenting, I believe, is the biggest contributer to conspicuous consumerism.
snguyeng // September 6, 2008 at 4:00 pm |
In what ways do you think fashion dolls like Barbie provide a different play experience for children then “baby dolls”? Do you think one type of doll is “healthier” or more appropriate then the other?
Fashion dolls like Barbie provide a different play experience for children than “baby dolls” because on page 17 it says, “When a girl plays with a baby doll, she becomes in her fantasy the doll’s mother. She talks directly to the doll, entering into the play as an actor in her own right. When playing with a Barbie doll, on the other hand, the girl usually “becomes” Barbie. She manipulates Barbie, Ken and the other dolls, speaking for them and moving them around a miniature environment in which she herself cannot participate”. By playing with Barbie dolls I think that the girls would mature more quickly than other girls who play with baby dolls because it allows them to use the things they learned form either their parents or other adult conversations. Then the girls would use what they learned and practice it while playing with the Barbie dolls. I really don’t think there is a “healthier” or more appropriate doll for children. They’re all the same to me. . .
sadafh12 // September 6, 2008 at 7:38 pm |
In response to the third question:
I think Motz is incorrect in her assumption that Barbie “represents an outdated and potentially detrimental image of women’s lives”.
First of all, Motz herself says that “most owners of barbie dolls are girls between the age of 3 and 11 years of age. ” Barbie focuses on young girls, so how can it be an outdated image of “women”? To little girls, barbie is just a toy they can dress up however they like and play with their toys, that’s about as far as it goes with their mindsets.
Now-a-days, barbie has come out with so many different products, it’s no wonder why barbie still sells so well. Barbie not only comes with the latest trends, dressed up in the newest fashions, and coming out with barbie dressed up as an astronaut or a CEO. They also have fantasy barbies, which attract little girls. Barbie also make great presents for little girls, which is another reason why barbie’s sell so well. (LOOK I MADE A RHYME.
j/k)
Barbie seems to portray in my opinion, teenagers, not “women” so to speak. Sure they put her in grown up roles, but barbie is technically a teenager, barbie was never specifically given an age so you can’t say that barbie is outdated, when she has the newest fashion trends.
And speaking of fashion trends, the fashion trends that barbie does seem to follow are the teenage trends, and barbie targets all ethnicities of young girls.
Mattel comes out with different versions of barbie which is another reason why it sells so well. They’ve come out with the “What’s your Flava” Barbie, MYscene barbie dolls and other kinds, so of course barbie is going to live the life of leisure with her dream house and corvette, in little girls minds, shes their age, so she’s bound to not care about the future and just have fun.
namatirai // September 7, 2008 at 12:50 pm |
question one
l think fashion dolls like Barbie provide a great different play experience for children.As the writer says playing with a barbie doll can help a young girl on how to act in different situations in life,a girl is able to establish the limits of acceptable behaviour for a young woman and explore the possibilities and consequences of exceeding those limits.Young girls can also explore their anxieties about future relationships with men.This is good because it teaches the young children the way to behave in both a young age and an older age unlike the baby doll which only teaches the child to become a good mother only.Barbie also provides a play experience in which the child is taught that each activity requires a appropriate attire in other words it teaches about the good manners a girl should have ,how to dress and how to behave which is very good because sometimes mothers dont have the time.
Barbie is really a great doll because she conforms to everyday life the lastest clothes the lastest activities.But in some way barbie is not a healthy doll due to the fact of her being a conspicuous consumer compared to the baby doll.Barbie requires a lot and that is not healthy to some point she is more of a model type of person and not all girls are models.so l think one type of dol is healthier or more apropriate than the other depending on the age.
mikeb89 // September 7, 2008 at 1:59 pm |
In response to question 4
Barbie’s values, represented in wealth, beauty, popularity and leisure are viewed as success in America, but I don’t think it is what the question describes as “central” to success. Some of these can’t be helped, and success can come in many different ways that a barbie doll would not portray. Barbie’s attributes of success through wealth, beauty, popularity and leisure are comparable to celebrities, who can use money to make themselves popular, beautiful, and have the most expensive leisure items. Unfortunately, most of America cannot afford to have all four of those attributes. Poorer families would not be able to afford any of it, but still can have success in America. Success can be viewed in many different ways that Barbie does not portray. For example, a very common goal is to graduate college, but this success does not give wealth, beauty, popularity or leisure. Values represented from Barbies are very unrealistic to the successes of the real world, and most girls will never reach the level of success that Barbie has reached with her celebrity status.
Barbie is just a doll for girls to fantasize what it feels to be a barbie, along with the wealth, beauty, popularity, ect. These attributes do not define success in America, yet everyone dreams about having these kind of things in their lives. It might be central to the dreams of people, but in real life, these things are attainable to a certain level, but usually not to Barbie’s level.
apiccioni // September 7, 2008 at 3:27 pm |
Question 3
Thorstein Veblen’s comments on status and consumerism still apply to American society today because we still buy objects to impress other people, probably more now then in 1899 when he made the comments. It doesn’t matter if the objects we have are still usable, society today always wants the newer, better version mainly because “we want others to know we can afford them.” Our society thrives on new versions of objects, so if we don’t stay up to date and buy everything new, our status in society could be lowered and others will look down on us as if we are “paupers.”
I don’t completely agree with Motz that Barbie contributes to the promotion of “conspicuous consumption.” To little girls, Barbie is just a doll that they can play and have fun with. The whole point of having a Barbie is to dress her up and create different personalities for her. Sure luxurious items like cars, boats, and expensive clothes make up who Barbie is but, that doesn’t mean that the girls want to be that way when they grow up. The material objects that a single doll has can’t be that persuasive on children and promote “conspicuous consumption” because, at the end of the day when they are done playing with her, the girls go back to reality but Barbie continues being just a doll that lives in a fantasy world.
ssinghq // September 7, 2008 at 4:00 pm |
In response to the second question
I think that Thorstein Veblen’s comments on status and consumerism do apply to the modern world but not to that high extent. It’s definitely true that we buy a lot of things more because we need them rather than we want them. People usually tend to show others that what they are capable of. Therefore, this results in wastage of more money and collection of more useless objects. However, I believe that it strictly depends upon what kind of people we are considering when we are talking about conspicuous consumption. With the increasing unemployment and rise in prices for the daily used household things, I believe that only few upper class people have the disposable money to waste on getting the things they do not need. Now a day’s people tend to save as much as possible and try to cut down their expenses to the most they can. Most of the middle class people try not to waste money on the unnecessary things and save it for their children’s future.
I definitely disagree with Motz that Barbie contributes to the promotion of conspicuous consumption. Barbie does have that attraction that it pulls all the young children towards it. However, at that small age, the decision whether children are getting a thing or not totally rests on the parents. Sometime parents give up their own needs to satisfy their child’s wants due to their extreme love for their children. I feel that by making these attractive things, companies are exploiting the middle class families and playing with the emotions of the innocent children. I believe that modern middle class children are smart enough that after a couple of rejections, they get their mindset that these fancy things are not for them. Therefore, I think Barbie does not contribute to the promotion of conspicuous consumption.
kcrumb // September 7, 2008 at 4:48 pm |
In response to question 2:
Thorstien Velben’s comment about consumerism of American society is still very applicable. More than ever it seems people buy more expensive things to show their wealth. Just look on how many people by SUV’s that use two to three times more gas than any car should. Look at all the people who bought bigger houses they could not afford. It is true that Americans spend money on things they don’t need or get things much larger than they need to be. After all, we live in a society that has social classes and everyone wants to be in the upper class and if they are not people still try to make people think they are richer than they really are by buying bigger or more expensive things. This is also contributed by the booming success of capitalism of our time. People are no longer surfs like in the old days and they have more money, so what do they do? They spend it on things to show how much money they have. This may seem like a cycle of waste but without all these people spending all this money, the country would not have much of an economy.
Now some people like Ferris Moltz believe that barbie contributes to promoting “conspicuous consumption”. Moltz and others couldn’t have been more right. After all, what is the easiest age group to influence, well young children. When you are a little kid, your mind is still not developed enough to think critically. Sure children have no money, but their parents sure do. So major toy companies like Mattel are of course create toys that promote consumerism, because their company depends on people purchasing their product. By instilling values like the more expensive the better the company can continue for generations since they are targeting the youth. This may not be the best values kids learn but they do learn it weather they realize it or not. And as a result the toy companies make billions. So in conclusion, not only does consumerism strive in modern America, but kid toys like barbie contribute as teachers to little girls (and even some boys) that spending more is better
vixers // September 7, 2008 at 8:33 pm |
In response to question 1.
Fashion dolls like Barbie allow a child to practice the actions of adults whom they observe while using an object, whereas baby dolls put children in the shoes of a mother, therefore baby dolls may allow some children to establish a closer connection and relationship with the doll than with fashion dolls. When playing with a fashion doll, a child will handle the doll as a tool in their own fantasy world to control and manipulate in accordance with their wishes. In contrast, baby dolls are treated with motherly care, to be nurtured for, looked after, and spoken to directly. One doll could teach a child to be an independent, affluent adult whereas the other could teach a child to be a caring, responsible wife and mother. Neither of these two dolls embody negative connotations be their being. It can be inferred from this that these dolls influence a child’s personal beliefs concerning an adult lifestyle. However, my own personal experience shows that to children, dolls are simply objects to play with and have no effect on the values that a person bears, nor any effects on the opinions or outlook of a child. Although both types of dolls provide different play experiences, dolls, whether fashionable or not, are just what they are- toys.
At a young age, children tend to mimic the status quo of societal behavior, such as how to act in certain situations, what is appropriate attire for a specific event, and how to respond to circumstances that may arise in the future when they perceive their surroundings. Motz writes that fashion dolls teach children “to consume and conform, to seek fun and popularity above all else” by giving the children an object to “direct this play.” It is not the dolls themselves however, that teach children these values, but the media, environment, and people the children are exposed to. Motz herself writes in regard to the idea of the importance of popularity and consumerist values “The Barbie doll did not create these attitudes. Nor will the doll insidiously instill these values in girls whose total upbringing emphasizes other factors. An individual girl can, of course create with her own doll any sort of behavior and activities she chooses.” Therefore it is how we as a society reflect our stereotypical perceptions of the doll upon our children as opposed to some inherent quality in the doll itself that imbeds these views into our children’s minds.
vixers // September 7, 2008 at 8:38 pm |
*EDIT: Neither of these two dolls embody negative connotations intrinsically. *
“Be their being”?! UGH! What was I thinking?!
ncicalese // September 7, 2008 at 11:05 pm |
In response to question 4:
Wealth, beauty, popularity, and leisure might be central to success for celebrities, but not for everyday average Americans. These values represented by Barbie are the things that celebrities would view as success. Their mindset is that beauty, popularity, and owning expensive things brings success and wealth. But for most Americans, these values seem miniscule when it comes to gaining success. Most of us see achieving success as accomplishing our goals and following our dreams. In the real world, beauty and popularity is just not important when it comes to being successful. Although these things might be represented by Barbie, it doesn’t mean everyone views success in this way. Young girls might idolize Barbie for her beauty and popularity, but they don’t look at this as being successful in life. Usually, Barbie’s life is viewed as a fantasy, and young girls try to be like her. However, they can also see that these values are only demonstrated by wealthy celebrities, being that they are the only ones that can actually achieve success this way. Therefore, these values that Barbie represents are only central to success in the dreams of Americans. They are not practicable in the real world.
ziazamir // September 7, 2008 at 11:08 pm |
Question 1:
Baby Dolls and Fashion Dolls have two different play experiences for children in different ways. First, the child feels that when playing with a baby doll “she becomes in her fantasy the doll’s mother.” (17, Motz) However, when playing with fashion dolls, the child recieves the feeling of anxiety that she has to be perfect looking, and have the perfect clothes. This makes the baby doll more appropriate.
The Baby Doll is most appropriate for many reasons. First, the child has a different feeling when playing with baby doll than fashion doll. The child will feel less competitive. In more detail, the child wouldnt have to keep up with the most upto date clothing line and everything . Instead, child can just get one baby doll, and play with his or her friends. Another thing is that, accroding to Motz, he says that young women should enjoy the carefree years of the youth. With baby dolls, they will be able to do that with the innocence of actually playing. However, with fashion dolls, this is not possible because it creates the anxiety of future relationship with guys, and giving the impression that life is all about nice clothes, cars, and having the maturist bodies. This gives the wrong impression. I disagree with nimatarai, because even though one might see how the fashion dolls can be seen as a means to explore different possibilities, I would think that at such a young age of innocence is not the right time for young women to be exposed to such things. Thank you
abigailchavez // September 8, 2008 at 12:44 am |
As pointed out in Common Culture page 8 “Since her “birth” in 1959, Barbie has achieved celebrity status in United States culture and, indeed, worldwide. More than one billion Barbies have been sold in the last forty-five years, and Barbie products continue to bring in over a billion dollars every year for Mattel…” Barbie is the most notorious fashion doll to be played with. As an owner of Barbie dolls, Bratz dolls, and My scene dolls, I would have to say that playing with the Barbie doll is “healthier” and more appropriate than playing with other dolls.
When young girls play with Barbie dolls they envision themselves as the doll herself. (Motz) “In playing with a Barbie doll, a girl can control the action, can be omnipotent in a miniature world of her own creation. When a girl plays with a baby doll, she becomes in her fantasy the doll’s mother. She talks directly to the doll, entering into the play as an actor in her own right. When playing with a Barbie doll, on the other hand, the girl usually “becomes” Barbie.”
This can be a good thing because Barbie herself comes with several accessories including her different occupations such as doctor, teacher, astronaut, and basketball player. So in a sense girls can envision themselves to be stable independent women who need help from no one else. When I was younger I enjoyed playing with my Barbie dolls pretending to be them. I would manipulate the doll to do whatever I wanted her to do and in my mentality I would practically be Barbie herself. My favorite Barbie doll was the soccer one, because back then Soccer was my life, but don’t get me wrong I also loved playing with the Doctor Barbie. playing with all these types of Barbie dolls allowed me to expand my imagination which according to specialists is a good thing for younger children to do.
Playing with the other dolls essentially felt different. Like Barbie, the other dolls also had accessories, but more on the superficial side. For example the only thing that Bratz were good for were purely superficial beauty. Yeah my bratz dolls were pretty and even handsome, but that’s about it. I honestly couldn’t envision my self being an independent female and have things going for me when I played with my Bratz and My Scene dolls. Thinking back, actually they were sort of useless, all I literally did with them was change their outfits because that’s all they had going for them.
I believe that playing with the Barbie doll is more suitable. It allows a child’s vivid imagination to come to life. Aside from that it also gives hope to the child’s future, introducing her to real life professional occupations and not just what women were portrayed to be back then, house wives.
You must be logged in to post a comment.