Body Image: Who is to be blamed?

Who should we blame for the deepening disgust that men and women see in their bodies? The authors of the article "Evolving Ideals of Male Body Image as Seen Through Action Toys" seem to think that the toys we play with as children are to blame. To prove this, they compared the first Star Wars and GI Joe toys. In both cases, they found an increase in muscle size and muscular definition. For example, the earliest GI Joe figure shows no abdominal muscle, but as the years go on, the abdominal muscles of his counterparts become more defined. Similarly, the toy figures of Luke Skywalker and Hans Solo have become more muscular and toned. In comparison to their 1978 counterparts, the Star Wars toys in 1998 have obtained the physiques of body builders. Thus, although it is not sure to what extent these toys influence males, we should continue research to assess the impression that the toys make on our children.

On the other hand, the author of "G.I. Joe's Big Biceps are Not a Big Deal" seems to think that the idea that toys promote an unrealistic body image is preposterous. Yes, the toys do have some abnormal features, like the huge arms of a G.I. Joe or the big bust of a Barbie; but so what? They all have one thing in common; they're just toys! Boys have always wanted to be big and muscular. When they can find their role models in people who are actually real, why would they choose a plastic doll?

The tone found in the first article is a serious, researched tone. The authors provide exact numbers with a long list of references at the end. They also attempt to prove their point through an experiment. For example, they provide pictures to go along with their results so that we can see what they are writing about. Furthermore, the authors provide a table that displays the actual measurements of some of the toys and their measurements for if their height were extrapolated to 70 inches. All of their research, pictures, and the table allow the audience to recognize that there might be some truth in the argument that the author's present. I would expect that the authors directed this article towards an audience of other scientists and experimenters who would carry out this or a similar experiment further.

The tone found in the second article is a comical, almost satirical tone. I felt that the author's use of language was ineffective. Her only argument was, "They're just toys." I found little support for this argument. However, she did give examples of other 'ridiculous' statements that researchers and others have made about toys, like Barbie. I would expect her audience to be young adults or other adults who are easily swayed without solid facts.

Although I find the second article a bit ineffective, I agree more with it than with the first. I believe that toys have little effect on young minds. Rather, it is the young people who influence toys and the way they are built. When I was young, I played with Barbies a lot. It was my favorite because you could play out real, or somewhat real, situations with it since it was human. I also liked it because my friends favored it too. At that time, I do not remember ever thinking or caring about how skinny the doll was or how big her bust was. Thus, I don't think that dolls or other toys have much influence over the minds of the young. The toys merely reflect what children are thinking and/or seeing. Nowadays, since children are being exposed to more masculinity and feminism in ads or on TV, why should toys be left behind?