Thanks for the rundown on the Barbie movie - good to know I am not missing anything by not watching it. I grew up playing with Barbie dolls, so I'm aware of the vacuousness of the toy.
For me, the highly sexualized doll was meant to be used for playing out potential relationship stories, and I was never interested in the fashion angle or the cheap accessories. (I hated the blow up furniture - it used to deflate spontaneously all the time.) I never liked Ken, though, so I used my brother's GI Joe dolls to provide my Barbies with romantic interests.
Not sure that was what Mattel had in mind, but kids will be kids. (And girls will be girls... until the tranny demons show up.)
Thinking about it now, perhaps "Barbie" was one of the earliest experiments with this "gender fluid" thing? The dolls are very tall and thin, like fashion models but unlike most average women, making them somewhat androgynous, and now they have an actual transgender doll (well, based on some sort of transgender model - it still doesn't have genitals).
Ken, on the other hand was highly feminized in the way he dressed, and to be honest looked more gay than straight (making Barbie a "fag hag", as Ann Barnhardt once put it).
But as you said, children are creative and they will mix the Barbie dolls with other toys and dolls, and as such they can easily make Barbie get married, get pregnant and have babies. Even if the husband is a GI Joe and the child is a Playmobil...
I wouldn't call Barbie androgynous... she had bazooka boobs, an impossibly small waist, and generous hips (the classic "hourglass" shape that is supposed to appeal to men). If anything, she probably inspired more anorexia and bulimia than gender confusion. But I think eating disorders were a pre-cursor psy-op to the gender fluid thing, so in a way it all fits.
You are spot on about Ken being a total faggot, though. He literally had no balls. Not that the GI Joe dolls did either, but at least they looked like real men to me.
I was handed a Barbie doll years ago when I asked "what the hell are they talking about?" The first thing I checked -- there was no she. Where is her opening? Nothing. Ah, a real virgin? What is the big deal? Anoresia triumps? I assume this is supposed to be a female?'
Oppie is a different matter. 1, the project gave us Feynman who always played the authority for fools. Second, the project reveals what a lying, selfish, bastard Teller was -- te asshole! The nuclear McCarthy.
I didn't mind much the Barbie doll itself, my nieces play with Barbies all the time, but I never thought it was a "feminist icon" and thought the movie was boring and quite dumb, but pretending to be smart.
I didn't watch Oppenheimer. I liked Nolan's Memento and the Dark Knight series (2 and 3 in particular). But as for the rest... Inception was a good idea but, to my mind, botched, Interstellar was really bad, and Dunkirk was boring and a bit pointless. Oppenheimer is some sort of propaganda about people I'm not really interested in. So, I don't know if I will watch it.
Thanks for the rundown on the Barbie movie - good to know I am not missing anything by not watching it. I grew up playing with Barbie dolls, so I'm aware of the vacuousness of the toy.
For me, the highly sexualized doll was meant to be used for playing out potential relationship stories, and I was never interested in the fashion angle or the cheap accessories. (I hated the blow up furniture - it used to deflate spontaneously all the time.) I never liked Ken, though, so I used my brother's GI Joe dolls to provide my Barbies with romantic interests.
Not sure that was what Mattel had in mind, but kids will be kids. (And girls will be girls... until the tranny demons show up.)
Thinking about it now, perhaps "Barbie" was one of the earliest experiments with this "gender fluid" thing? The dolls are very tall and thin, like fashion models but unlike most average women, making them somewhat androgynous, and now they have an actual transgender doll (well, based on some sort of transgender model - it still doesn't have genitals).
Ken, on the other hand was highly feminized in the way he dressed, and to be honest looked more gay than straight (making Barbie a "fag hag", as Ann Barnhardt once put it).
But as you said, children are creative and they will mix the Barbie dolls with other toys and dolls, and as such they can easily make Barbie get married, get pregnant and have babies. Even if the husband is a GI Joe and the child is a Playmobil...
I wouldn't call Barbie androgynous... she had bazooka boobs, an impossibly small waist, and generous hips (the classic "hourglass" shape that is supposed to appeal to men). If anything, she probably inspired more anorexia and bulimia than gender confusion. But I think eating disorders were a pre-cursor psy-op to the gender fluid thing, so in a way it all fits.
You are spot on about Ken being a total faggot, though. He literally had no balls. Not that the GI Joe dolls did either, but at least they looked like real men to me.
Very much on target! Lots of reactions:
I was handed a Barbie doll years ago when I asked "what the hell are they talking about?" The first thing I checked -- there was no she. Where is her opening? Nothing. Ah, a real virgin? What is the big deal? Anoresia triumps? I assume this is supposed to be a female?'
Oppie is a different matter. 1, the project gave us Feynman who always played the authority for fools. Second, the project reveals what a lying, selfish, bastard Teller was -- te asshole! The nuclear McCarthy.
I didn't mind much the Barbie doll itself, my nieces play with Barbies all the time, but I never thought it was a "feminist icon" and thought the movie was boring and quite dumb, but pretending to be smart.
I didn't watch Oppenheimer. I liked Nolan's Memento and the Dark Knight series (2 and 3 in particular). But as for the rest... Inception was a good idea but, to my mind, botched, Interstellar was really bad, and Dunkirk was boring and a bit pointless. Oppenheimer is some sort of propaganda about people I'm not really interested in. So, I don't know if I will watch it.