Mad Dolls

Posted on by Phire and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

There’s something wrong with the fact that the Joan Holloway Barbie doll from Mattel, inspired by the hit show Mad Men, is as anorexic as Barbie dolls ever were. We’ve all heard enough about how Barbie dolls inspires negative body images in girls, but this doll is based on a real person, not the other way around.

Christina Hendricks, the actress behind Joan Holloway, has been celebrated as one of the few curvy actresses in the mainstream media that girls who are bigger than a size 0 can relate to. Remember that time when people thought that the New York Times altered a photo of her to make her look skinnier? That really didn’t work out too well for NYT.

Come on, Mattel. If this was an issue of you not wanting to come up with a different plastic molding for a slightly healthier looking doll, then maybe you shouldn’t have made a Joan doll at all. But making a Joan Holloway doll whose figure is indistinguishable from Betty Draper’s is just poor workmanship at this point…

Joan Holloway doll. Click to enlarge.

Betty Draper doll. Click to enlarge.

 

Related posts:

  1. New Makeup Gives Her Face that Photoshopped Look

About Phire

I go by Jenny, Jenn, Phire Phoenix, or Phire. I can usually be found wasting time on MetaFilter. In my spare time, I blog.

45 Responses to Mad Dolls

  1. Pastabagel says:

    It’s also worth pointing out that the actress who plays Joan is explicitly prohibited from exercising as part of her contract. So the Joan Holloway “look” is a deliberate result of an enforced lifestyle, which makes the doll’s shape even more egregious.

  2. philtrum says:

    The Barbie doll is notoriously unlike any woman who has ever existed, including January Jones (the very slender actress who plays Betty Draper). And the dolls aren’t aimed at little girls (though I’ve no doubt some little girls have them), because little girls don’t generally watch Mad Men. So my question is, is realistic body image the point here?

    The Barbie doll, with its iconic never-seen-in-nature shape, debuted in 1959; the costumes on the Mad Men dolls are from the first season, set in 1960. I see the dolls as comparable to the cartoons that AMC turned into the “Mad Men Yourself” game on their website; they aren’t realistic, but they aren’t supposed to be. The actors are real people, yes, but they’re costumed (with some pretty heavy-duty foundation garments, at that; Hendricks has mentioned that she has permanent scars from where her girdle rubs her thighs) and made up to look like movie stars of the late 1950s, and then re-imagined through the pop iconography of that time.

    I don’t mean to dismiss concerns about body image in girls; I really don’t. I’m just not sure that the intention in this specific instance was ever to make realistic models of January Jones and Christina Hendricks.

    • philtrum says:

      I should add, not even anorexics look like Barbie. Barbie is pretty much sui generis.

      Another thing I do find interesting is how we fixate on weight as the measure of “realistic” or “not realistic”. In fact, Barbie’s proportions are as wrong as her (hypothetical) weight. And Christina Hendricks, though not excessively thin, is an outlier in a lot of other ways.

      • FrederickMercury says:

        this is basically what i thought as i read this article.

        barbie isn’t specifically for “little girls” only, this specific barbie isn’t meant for little girls anyway, barbie has never ever looked realistic, barbie dolls DO have a unique “brand” image… let’s not manufacture a new controversy out of an old, also manufactured controversy, eh?

  3. Tiburon. says:

    “Remember that time when people thought that the New York Times altered a photo of her to make her look skinnier? That really didn’t work out too well for NYT. ”

    Quite the opposite, actually. The Times ran a distorted picture that made her look broader than she was, apparently in order to reinforce the point that “you don’t put a big girl in a big dress.”

  4. Pingback: Today’s Pop Hit: Monster High Dolls | free doll games

  5. AnonymousAtLarge says:

    Am I the only one who feels that a realistic christinia hendrickson doll would be way worse?

    Joan Holloway is not “big” like your average fat american… she has boobs for days and huge hips/butt. If they made the doll realistically proportioned it would be needlessly sexual and inappropriate for children. Could you imagine gifting that to a small child? “Here honey, a doll you can relate too… one who has enormous boobs and ass /hips just like the real joan holloway. Isn’t that so much better than skinny minnie barbie? Now your body image will be so much better, because starving yourself to be thin hurts and is difficult, but plastic surgery to get breast/ass implants does not require as much pain and self sacrifice, and a guy can always pay for it too”.
    I never understood the idea that women with giant boobs/ass/hips are positive rolemodels whereas thin women are negative rolemodels. This makes zero sense to me. It is just as rare to have a body like joan halloway or marilyn, as it is to have a body like twiggy. Why is the former celebrated but the latter is scorned?

    Is it because fat women delude themselves into thinking they have fat in the right places like joan halloway? Or is it because most women know they dont have the willpower or intelligence required to maintain a slender body type?

    I just don’t get it.

    I’m quite thin, as a result of healthful eating and careful monitoring of my weight. I am 5-5, 115 pounds, a size zero. My body type is thin. My measurements are 23.5 inches around my waist and 34-34.5 around my waist. I am not curvy at all but for a thin woman I’m not completely flat either. Looking like joan halloway is never going to happen for me – even if I packed on 30 or 40 pounds I would just look tubby. I tend to be pear shaped, but I could never have a figure like that.

    In fact I think “role models” like marilyn and joan halloway are worse for girls than are thinner women, because their bodies are so sexual, its as if they exist for pleasure only and are not real people… kind of like strippers with heavy black eye makeup, tanned skin and dyed blond platinum hair, it sends a clear message: I am a sex object. If you happen to have an exaggerated hourglass figure naturally, that’s great, but I do NOT comprehend the concept that these types of figures are inherently superior or “healthier” or make women feel better when compared to thinner, flatter figures.

    The only way I can possibly construe this as possible is if fat women who have big guts and square flat butts somehow lie to themselves and pretend that their bodies are big like marilyn and joan… which, knowing how stupid americans are, is probably correct.

    • philtrum says:

      I have the same body type as you, thanks to heredity, and there is no call to be nasty about women who don’t.

      Christina Hendricks does indeed have an extraordinary figure, thanks also to genetics. But did you miss that the Barbie doll also has huge breasts?

      • AnonymousAtLarge says:

        I was not “nasty” to bigger people, just specific bigger people who insult thinner people and delude themselves into thinking they’ve got a figure like marilyn or joan.

        • philtrum says:

          Not nasty? What on earth do you call this?

          Or is it because most women know they dont have the willpower or intelligence required to maintain a slender body type?

          Or this?

          In fact I think “role models” like marilyn and joan halloway are worse for girls than are thinner women, because their bodies are so sexual, its as if they exist for pleasure only and are not real people…

          Their presentation (clothes, makeup) is very sexual. Their bodies are no more or less sexual than yours or mine.

          • xylokopos says:

            “Their presentation (clothes, makeup) is very sexual. Their bodies are no more or less sexual than yours or mine.”

            You have got to be joking.

          • AnonymousAtLarge says:

            You seem pretty obsessed with arguing with me in every single thread, not sure why.

            I made it abundantly clear my comments were directed at hypocritical fat women who talk about how they are curvy healthy goddesses meanwhile women like myself are emaciated unhealthy mindless idiots for “conforming” to mainstream aesthetics. I was not directing my comments to larger women in general. I fail to see what your problem is.

            I also agree with xylokopos – you have got to be joking. Exaggerated hourglasses have more sexualized bodies, and to deny this is to deny nature. I’m sure you agree that scrawny computer programmers look just as good as fit muscular guys, right? It’s only the presentation which makes one objectively way hotter than the other. Sure.

          • philtrum says:

            No, xylokopos, I’m not joking. You cannot tell how interested in or capable of sex a woman is by looking at her body shape. There are many stories of girls who developed large breasts at age twelve or thirteen and got branded as “sluts” based on looks alone, but I would hope we as adults were beyond that foolishness.

            Marilyn Monroe without her bombshell styling was a very different-looking woman — quite innocent-looking, really.

          • xylokopos says:

            “You cannot tell how interested in or capable of sex a woman is by looking at her body shape.”

            this might be true but it is utterly irrelevant to what is being discussed. Hugh Hefner still gets it up and my grandma might have been horny into her 90s, but a sexual body is not about the mechanics and hormones of that body, it is about that body being perceived as sexually desirable by those who view it. That’s what we are talking about. A woman’s desirability is tied to the primary sexual characteristics of her gender, an ample bossom and wide hips.

          • philtrum says:

            but a sexual body is not about the mechanics and hormones of that body, it is about that body being perceived as sexually desirable by those who view it.

            Well, that’s an interesting way to define words.

            Also see kataclysm’s comment below. We are not talking about desirability, unless you believe AAL meant that merely being desired by others means you “exist only for sex” no matter what you actually do or feel sexually.

            A woman’s desirability is tied to the primary sexual characteristics of her gender, an ample bossom and wide hips.

            An ample bosom and wide hips are secondary sexual characteristics. The reproductive system is primary.

          • philtrum says:

            And also, would you agree that a woman who is sexually desirable is or seems to you to be “not a real person”? Because if so, that’s very interesting.

          • kataclysm says:

            @xylokopos @AAL

            I’d also like to point out that, although you might say that “to deny teh sexxy of ladies with curves is to deny nature,” various cultures have had their own wildly-varying standards of female beauty. Look at the Venus of Willendorf — she is pretty freaking hefty, more of an apple than an hourglass. The ideal female body type in European Renaissance art is closer to what is deemed Sexy in the present-day, but she’s still a good bit chunkier than we would prefer and a bit thicker in the waist. Then there are all the non-European cultures for whom fat women are the paragon of sexual desirability.

            You can cite all the old evo-psych papers you want about the ideal-ness of the 0.7 waist-hip ratio, but those papers have one fatal flaw: they were only using Westerners. More recent cross-cultural comparisons seem to say what we’ve been saying all along: sexiness is internally-generated by (individual preference * culture). Also, waist-hip ratio and therefore curviness in general doesn’t seem to matter that much: what really seems to matter in terms of what people find sexy is overall body mass index and a pretty, youthful face.

    • eqv says:

      I never understood the idea that women with giant boobs/ass/hips are positive rolemodels whereas thin women are negative rolemodels. This makes zero sense to me. It is just as rare to have a body like joan halloway or marilyn, as it is to have a body like twiggy. Why is the former celebrated but the latter is scorned?

      Is it because fat women delude themselves into thinking they have fat in the right places like joan halloway? Or is it because most women know they dont have the willpower or intelligence required to maintain a slender body type??

      Whoa. You seem angry. Maybe your blood sugar is a bit low? Calm down and eat something.
      Why should they have to ‘maintain’ a slender body type? There’s a difference between staying healthy/exercising, and doing unreasonable things to your body in order to conform with some pop-cultural ideal body shape. Nobody said anything about role models. The idea is simply that hardly anyone is as thin as Kiera Knightley and so it’s meant to be a positive thing that there are women on TV and in movies whose bodies aren’t physically ‘perfect’ in every way. I agree with you that it’s still far from ideal– I’m thinking of that Dove ad campaign where they asked for ‘real women’ and the women were of course much better looking than average. It’s still harmful in a way, because the idea that’s perpetuated is that a movie star body is a perfect body, when in fact many of these bodies are abnormal. Throw in the kinds of body distortions that are regularly applied in photoshoots etc, and you’ve got a serious problem.
      You say you’re a size zero and you watch your weight. Well, fine. But I hope you realize that most of that is possible due to genetics and body type. For a lot of women, it’s not a question of “intelligence” or “willpower”. It’s physically impossible for them to be a size zero.

      • eqv says:

        But I also know where you’re coming from w/r/t the way girls attack other girls for being thinner/wahtever.. I have a teenaged sister and she’s told me some horrific stories. “Eat a cheeseburger, bitch.” It’s a way for girls to attack other girls they perceive as being ‘prettier’ than them, when of course it’s mostly because of genetics. Which has obviously been going on since forever.

        • AnonymousAtLarge says:

          I am not naturally thin.

          I agree most thin people who criticize heavy people usually are naturally thin, but some if not many thin people over the age of 25 usually have to work at it. I will be the last person to say that fat people “just need to eat less”… I know it is not that easy, it has a lot to do with what you are eating and overall health and lifestyle. Weight is not accidental, it is a function of physiology and it is not as arbitrarily changed as deciding to eat less.

      • AnonymousAtLarge says:

        I find it most ironic that you told me to “calm down and eat something because my blood sugar was low” and then proceed to chastise me for being judgmental about certain heavy women.

        This is what I”m talking about. Just because you’re fat doesn’t give you the right to say whatever you want to thin people. I am not an unhealthy emaciated brainwashed culture drone, and if you say I am, expect nastiness in return.

        • eqv says:

          I meant the blood sugar thing sort of as a joke. I can’t really decide where I stand on this stuff. Probably doesn’t help that I am a guy and skinny even though I eat shitty food most of the time.
          What are your thoughts on the fat-positive movement or ‘fat feminism’?
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_acceptance_movement

          • boeotarch says:

            Reminds me of the Chris Rock bit: poor people can say whatever they want about rich people and fat chicks can say whatever they want about skinny chicks. What it boils down to is, haters gonna hate. Just be glad you’ve got a body type that other people wish they had, instead of complaining about the unlucky ones that resent you.

        • sunshinefiasco says:

          Oh this shit is hilarious.

          Who called you an emaciated drone? I think you may be a bit hypersensitive here.

          Philtrum called you rude, if anything, and she didn’t even actually call you that.

          Eqv made a joke (did you honestly take that seriously?) and then made a well reasoned argument pointing out that most women can’t be a size 0, which is true. Obviously I’ve never met you, but if you can fit in to size 0 pants by simply monitoring your weight in a healthy way, you are of a slender build naturally. As in, most women who monitor their weight in a healthy fashion would still not fit into a size 0.

          Why are you so pissed off about this? Are the bitter, pudgy, masses bullying you at work? Have that many people really given you shit about being tiny (if they have, i’m sorry about that, it’s a bummer)? Have you got a case of the booty (or boobie) envy? Because I’m not sure where all this rage is coming from, and it’s obscuring your point.

          Unless your point is that kids shouldn’t have Joan dolls and mean fat women should stop being so mean and fat.

          By the way, if you ever want a female to take you seriously, you might want to avoid sounding like the mean girl in eighth grade (“Just because you’re fat…”).

          • philtrum says:

            I’ve noticed that people who work very hard to stay slender often feel and express anger at others who don’t feel the need to work so hard. The woman who says “I have some extra weight, and I have more belly fat and cellulite than I would like, but I don’t have weight-related health issues that make me want to lose weight, and I would rather devote my time and energy to other things” is rather a threatening figure in that context.

            I also find certain aspects of the “anorexic skinny minny not a real woman stupid pop culture” complaint really grating, because sometimes that comes out of pure adolescent insecurity and narcissism: “why doesn’t the current mass-cultural ideal look like ME?” Well, because it doesn’t. It doesn’t look like me either, even though I am thin. So what? I’m not a model or a Hollywood starlet; I don’t need to look like one.

    • ThomasR says:

      AnonymousAtLarge, I think I can agree with your point that one body type should not be held up as better or worse than any other body type (I think that’s your point).

      What’s interesting to me about this issue is the fact that there are dolls for characters from Mad Men. Like someone else said, it doesn’t seem like the target audience for Mad Men includes little girls, so who are these dolls targeted too?

      “which, knowing how stupid americans are, is probably correct.”

      This sentence made me laugh. Although as a non-stupid (or self-deluded…) American, I feel vaguely stereotyped.

    • sunshinefiasco says:

      First:
      In fact I think “role models” like marilyn and joan halloway are worse for girls than are thinner women, because their bodies are so sexual, its as if they exist for pleasure only and are not real people… kind of like strippers with heavy black eye makeup, tanned skin and dyed blond platinum hair, it sends a clear message: I am a sex object.

      eye makeup, tan, dyed hair= things you choose/have a significant amount of control of
      weight= something that the majority of people have some control of
      genetic predispositions to figure/bone structure= something no one has control of

      Second:
      Could you imagine gifting that [accurate Joan Holloway doll] to a small child?
      No, because none of the small children in my life give a fuck about AMC programming, not to mention that I’d prefer to give them something they’d like to play that won’t be destroyed in 25 minutes.

      Thirdly
      Their presentation (clothes, makeup) is very sexual. Their bodies are no more or less sexual than yours or mine.
      This. Also, the amount of sexuality a person chooses to inject into their appearance is entirely up to them, and has to do with all kinds of things, many of which are unrelated to body type.

      Lastly:

      You might want to take a look at some of the language you used up there. The problem with starving yourself to be thin isn’t that “it hurts or is difficult”, it’s that starving yourself (not monitoring your weight, but actually having a problem) in order to have a body like you see on tv is indicative of some serious self-loathing. It’s the same problem with people who compulsively undergo plastic surgery, or emotionally eat themselves into oblivion. The behavior is one thing, and has it’s own negative consequences (be they loss of bone density, complications from surgery, or obesity). Where the behavior stems from is the underlying problem.

      I never understood the idea that women with giant boobs/ass/hips are positive rolemodels whereas thin women are negative role models.

      It’s not a zero sum game. Just because women with some curves going on are positive role models doesn’t mean thin women can’t be.

      The majority of women aren’t built like Christina Hendricks, but the majority aren’t built like you are either. That isn’t some sort of default stting. Even if you take the damned flat-assed-gut-havers and magically put them at their metabolism’s ideal weight, they will probably have either more ass, more hip, and/or more boobs than the “normal” person you see on TV. That’s why characters like Joan on TV are considered to be positive role models.

      While there are healthy famous people who get attacked for being too thin, they’re typically being attacked for appearing (key word: appearing) emaciated. That’s not right, and much of the time, it’s coming from a very bitter and small place. Just remember, the people making that judgement “She is tiny, she does not eat, she has body image issues, she hates women” are using the same criteria as the people who say shit like “She is huge, she has no willpower, she is stupid, she is a slob.”

      • philtrum says:

        There’s a weird attitude to the curvy female body expressed in that “would you give a child a doll with such a sexual body” thing. A lot of children live with women with big boobs and hips. Christina Hendricks isn’t some X-rated hypersexual plaything, she’s a woman who drinks coffee and watches Hitchcock movies and had a rough time in high school and sometimes goes out without makeup, and does any number of other ordinary things she doesn’t mention in interviews. I would have no problem giving a doll with her body shape to a child of mine, if such were available, because it’s just a doll shaped like a woman.

      • Fifi says:

        sunshinefiasco – “It’s not a zero sum game. Just because women with some curves going on are positive role models doesn’t mean thin women can’t be.”

        Presenting girls with realistic images of women’s bodies (and their own) is about presenting diversity – women come in all shapes and sizes – and means that being pretty isn’t promote as the ultimate measure of their/our worth. The problem is with what’s being promoted as the ultimate ambition and achievement (and source of power) – being pretty and seen as pretty by strangers. From my perspective, a woman who is a positive role model for girls isn’t one because of the shape of her body, it’s what she does that counts.

        It’s also worth noting that all the women on Mad Men are presenting artificial bodies, in that they’re wearing girdles and underwear that reshapes the body.

        I think there’s also some confusion about the difference between someone being sexual and being seen as sexy (what others expect because of the way they look). Women with curvy figures may be perceived by some people as more sexual but that’s more about the observers’ projections (and desires and revulsions) than the actual person being projected on to. How sexual that person is in their behaviour and how sexual they feel is not defined by how they look, how others treat them can be if all that person does is project onto them and ignore their desires.

    • kataclysm says:

      In fact I think “role models” like marilyn and joan halloway are worse for girls than are thinner women, because their bodies are so sexual, its as if they exist for pleasure only and are not real people…

      I am going back over some ground that other commenters have covered already, but I want to take a special second to examine this sentence. (Bias alert: I’m one of those “sexual-bodied” women with a tiny waist and a big ol’ ass. I’m your height, but if I drop below 125# or so, it is flat-out unhealthy: you can suddenly see all my ribs and my sternum, and my periods stop and I start fainting.)

      First: None of us have control over the innate shape of our bodies. We can eat correctly and exercise and whatnot, but nobody chooses how their fat is going to be preferentially deposited, or how wide their pelvis is going to flare out around puberty time, or how long their legs will grow.

      Second: Because of this, it’s usually counterproductive to pigeonhole body types, of all things, as being basically sexual or basically not sexual. I mean, bodies can be engaged in sexual activity, but they do a lot of other stuff too. Is my body sexual when it is running? Is it sexual when it’s sitting on the toilet taking a crap? Would Joan Holloway and Marilyn Monroe exude sexiness if you saw them wearing rumpled and loose-fitting pajamas with bedhead hair and all bleary-eyed the morning after a really late night?

      Sexuality isn’t so much a product of a specific stimulus as it is your reactions to that stimulus. You find hourglass-shaped women to be deeply evocative of sexuality. It’s common in our culture. But common opinions and cultural conceptions of sexuality doesn’t mean it’s valid to take a subjective experience of women’s bodies and attribute it as an objective fact attached to the bodies themselves. In its overall premises, your argument that Joan Holloway’s curves are intrinsically sexual is a really similar argument to that used by religious fundamentalist types in favor of enforced “modest dressing”.

      Third: So, this sentence, by itself and also taken in context, sets up a two-tiered system of body-ranking. It is similar to commonly-held views in American culture about bodies and the women who inhabit them. There is a slender, curveless body, which is symbolic of willpower and achievement; there is a body that has a double allotment of tits and ass, which is symbolic of blatant sexuality but extremely feminine and not entitled to complete personhood (“exist[ing] for pleasure only and… not real people”). Elsewhere, the “fat women” enter into the equation as a vast untouchable caste, who aren’t even visible except when it’s time to scorn them. Note that the body is the only thing that matters in this ranking system. There are three base models, and each unit within a given model is essentially interchangeable. What does this say about your attitudes towards women? Is there a similar Cliffs Notes to men, where you can tell everything you need to know about a man from a quick glance at his body?

      Fourth: Even if you were right, even if I existed only for pleasure, even if your slender figure is the personification of your strong will and native intelligence… Is a representation of honest and empowered female sexuality really bad for girls?

      (Unrelated: A lot of your language reminds me uncomfortably of pro-ana rhetoric. You could be a very clever troll. But on the off chance that you aren’t: I’m worried about you. Please take care of yourself.)

      • philtrum says:

        Co-sign on this entire comment.

      • philtrum says:

        Though I should add that AAL in previous threads has made it clear that she believes most straight women have rendered themselves “sexually worthless” by having too many sexual partners, and that women aren’t naturally anywhere near as sexual as men. So “honest and empowered female sexuality” may not be exactly a selling point.

        I do find it interesting that someone would so strongly map psychological/social traits on to body types and then work so hard to maintain a very thin figure that, by her own admission, is not “natural” to her. Especially when the figure she maintains is one she identifies as not sexual. As you observe, this looks a lot like anorexic thinking, even if not accompanied by anorexic behaviour.

  6. Guy Fox says:

    Perhaps part of the problem is that pop culture is the source for any model body image. There was a time when a more abstract, platonic form was enough for a doll (think Raggedy Ann, but maybe stitched together by grandma or carved and joined by grandpa – i.e. without a label); the kid’s imagination had to fill in the details. Not only does nobody expect the kids’ imaginations to stretch beyond the cookie cutter image they’ve seen on TV/movies/web comics, etc., but toy designers seem incapable of/unwilling to produce anything that isn’t already a cultural symbol with whackloads of positive/negative/benign-but-panic-inducing baggage. The problem isn’t whether a doll promotes a positive or negative body image, the problem is that we force feed them the debates and neuroses that impel us for reasons that have nothing to do with play.

    • octo says:

      The problem isn’t whether a doll promotes a positive or negative body image, the problem is that we force feed them the debates and neuroses that impel us for reasons that have nothing to do with play.

      That’s a great point. Just as there are cookie-cutter cultural symbols, like a skinny barbie, there are cookie-cutter cultural responses “barbie is bad/good!” that follow: “toy X reinforces negative stereotype Y”

      One reason designers create toys that are also cultural symbols might stem from the fact that it’s the parents who actually do the purchasing. Even if there’s a hot toy that year a la Tickle-Me-Elmo, the end-consumer is still different than the purchaser, and Mom might have a different reaction to a Barbie at the toy store than some other toy the child might be just as happy to get on Christmas morning.

  7. Pingback: Jury rejects Mattel’s claim to Bratz | free doll games

  8. Minerva says:

    As a woman, the size of the doll was the last thing on my mind. All I could think of when i read this is why anyone over 12 would want to buy something like this. (Unless it were for someone under 12 which is unlikely.)

  9. docker says:

    recently i visited a friend who had moved to vallejo, ca. across the street from here apartment was this barbie-related store:
    http://www.ooakbarbies.com/

  10. AnonymousAtLarge says:

    The comments in this thread make baby jesus cry. It’s like a flood of stupid.

    • philtrum says:

      We love you too, dear.

    • operator says:

      Am I the only one ..? I never understood … makes zero sense to me. I just don’t get it. I’m quite thinI am 5-5, 115 pounds, a size zero … My body type is thin. My measurements … around my waist and … around my waist. I am not curvy … I’m not completely flat … never going to happen for me – even if I packed … I would just look tubby. I tend to be … but I could never … In fact I think … I am a sex object … naturally, that’s great, but I do NOT comprehend the concept…

      It started when someone decided to make all this all about herself, n’est pas?

    • eqv says:

      Misunderstood. Don’t worry. We know. Nobody really truly ‘gets’ you.

  11. inarticulateinthecity says:

    These dolls are obviously aimed at women. Yes, there are women who buy them, collect them.

    The female characters in Mad Men make women revisit roles and feel like they’re like playing dollhouse all over again: there’s the sexy bombshell who struggles with the cards she’s dealt and the brain God gave her, the silly girl who tries to navigate in a manly world and becomes a smart copywriter, the stunted, childish mother and trophy wife married to a narcissistic handsome philanderer. And all these roles come with stylish clothes and hairdos.

    Yes, they’re aimed at women, not children. And I bet they won’t mind in the least that Joan’s doll isn’t as sexy as in the show.

  12. Pingback: garment news daily

Leave a Reply