[rastignac]

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/14/living...ef=edition

Apparently, Barbie and her handlers are either unapologetically Red Pill or are looking to rile up the feminist press. I remember how all the feminist cultural critics in 90s academia were obsessed with Barbie. So much of current journalism is based on that earlier academic humanities crap.

https://twitter.com/Barbie/status/432974...68/photo/1



Perhaps Barbie will advance the cultural discussion about femininity and obesity by providing the first anti-feminist social media marketing campaign. I think she looks good.

[Sp5]

They were on Bloomberg yesterday discussing this, the consensus was that it was a troll to get attention to the Barbie brand, but that the brand was hurting because feminist mothers (they did not use the word "feminist" but implied it) would not buy Barbies for their daughters.

[soup]

Most of what passes for "feminist" isn't. It's selfishist.

Real feminists care about femininity and respect that.

[polymath]

The hashtag indicates that they're trying to start a conversation on twitter or instagram, so yeah it's probably to get people riled up one way or another.

Seems like good advertising, insofar as it has generated conversations even among men (ie, here on RVF).

[dads]

It's pretty damning that a few of these companies that cater really exclusively to women want no part in obese feminist pigs, like Mattell, that yoga pants company and Abercrombie and Fitch. I think these companies are in tune with what people really want, and it'll take a lot more to make them play the blue pill game. Here's hoping to that anyways.

[Sp5]

Time: In defense of Barbie, why she might be a feminist doll after all

Quote:

It may be time for Barbie to get a whole new wardrobe and some fun new accessories: Aging Jilted Barbie, complete with stained bathrobe, bottle of red wine and copy of Eat, Pray, Love.

That’s because Barbie is being pushed out in favor of younger, sluttier dolls with bigger heads. First it was Bratz with their outrageously puffed-up lips, heavy makeup and feather boas. Now it’s Monster High dolls, who dress like prostitutes and have the dimensions of lollipops. Sales for Barbie were down 13% over the holiday quarter, the steepest drop in recent memory, especially when compared to last year’s 4% drop. And Mattel recently launched a new ad campaign that includes a Barbie spread in the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue (TIME and Sports Illustrated are both owned by Time Inc).

Barbie has always gotten flak for her too thin, too made-up look; she’s basically an effigy for everything feminists hate. But at least Barbie looks like an adult woman, which is more than can be said for the Monster High dolls. They have enormous heads and spaghetti legs attached to a prepubescent body clad in fishnets and dominatrix boots. Barbie might be too wasp-waisted for some people’s taste, but she doesn’t look like a baby hooker. I’d take an out-of-whack body image over sexualizing kids any day of the week. . . . . .

[rastignac]

Those Monster High and Bratz dolls are basically a celebration of every look and attitude that would make a man avoid western women like the plague. Good luck men to the men of 2030. You will need it.

[Bad Hussar]

Absolutely on the money. It's so damn easy to troll feminists, and more importantly get your brand more exposure in the mainstream media when their hysterics attract the attention of said media. It's like free money. I like to call profiting from so called "politically correct" drivel "Reality Arbitrage". This is basically how it goes down:

1) You have a position based on reality. e.g. 95+% of young girls would like to play with a doll like Barbie and would respond positively to such a toy.

2) You have a "political" position that doesn't accept reality, mainly because it hurts the feelings of those who have failed to achieve mainstream success, or achieved it at one point but have now lost it. e.g. Feminists are opposed to dolls like Barbies because they themselves are usually quite unattractive, or perhaps were once attractive but the passage of time has changed the amount of attention they get. Seeing images of attractive women, whether real or plastic intensely annoys and depresses them because it reveals their lack of power in this critical domain.

3) The forces of political correctness wield disproportional influence in media (for a variety of reasons) and try to create a image of a world that is more like their politically correct creation than objective reality. Some of society tend to follow the media and so lean this way, at least in public. eg. Some media outlets no doubt ran critical stories about Mattell after this release.

4) Most people in their day to day practical lives are forced to confront and act in accordance with reality, not PC. This provides opportunities for companies to fill the gap with reality based products, like Barbies. Since the forces of PC in some of the media like to believe that their world is the real one they act as if they are "shocked" when reality based products are offered to the public. It is at this point that the major benefit of PC reveals itself. A company simply has to break the PC rules slightly and wait for unseen forces to essentially act on their behalf, without remuneration, in attracting publicity to their product. e.g. Mattel simply continue to offer Barbie as always, and throw in something about being unapologetic about it. Instantly probably $100,000+ in free money (publicity).

As and aside: It's no use trolling the "Manosphere" for free money in this way since there is very little or none to find there since it isn't (positively) associated with mainstream media currently.