Ranting over the new Rainbow

[Major Ursa]

Very good point Babydoll.

[Starvoyager]

My apologies, in advance, for the size of this...

I can't say anything until she's actually released, but I'm happy for now. I guess since I never collected Rainbow Brite as a kid, I don't have the same emotional attachment everyone else does. I like changes now and then because I always hope the change will come out for the better. Besides, I've seen a lot of people on the net draw Rainbow Brite as a teen and drew her that way a few times myself, and after seeing a lot of these I wondered why everyone feels compelled to draw RB in an older incarnation. Maybe it's because people want their childhood heroine to grow up with them, a reminder that growing older won't change anything. After all, do we all have such little faith in Rainbow Brite herself? Think about it for a second. Why would growing up a little change her? Wouldn't she still be as sweet as she was in her childhood, as caring of others? The company said as much when they claimed that they would honor the look of the original and position her as a role model for girls.

Heh, you seem to be missing the same point that I think Hallmark is. It's as if nobody who had a hand in RB in 2003, or now, realizes that there was more to the franchise. You talk about emotional attachment as if it only applies to the toys. Rainbow Brite was MEDIA-DRIVEN. Hallmark didn't just dump some dolls on the shelves in the 80's and profit a billion dollars off of it. There were television specials, there was a full-length feature film, there were TV commercials, there was whatever went on in the greeting card aisles; she even had her own breakfast cereal. The toys are practically nothing without the marketing, and somehow Hallmark has overlooked that in this decade. It's very very hard to get Kids hooked on a franchise just by dangling a doll in front of them. Maybe once upon a time that would work, back when televisions were luxury items, PC's (and all forms of entertainment/communication that came with them) were non-existant, movies were rare and expensive weekend treats, and globalization in the toy markets was still in its infancy. Barbie, for instance, was provided with practically no recommended personality profile, and could be roleplayed any way the children wished. The doll left everything up to the imagination. Mattel was so religiously dedicated to this point, that they opted NOT to put Barbie into the "Toy Story" film, because they didn't want a movie slapping a pre-defined personality onto their doll. But now, Mattel has completely flipped-flopped on that philosophy. They let her appear in "Toy Story 2", and in a whole slew of CGI Barbie movies. Looks like Mattel discovered the need for a change there. Another great example is Lego. A decade ago, the model themes they released left the roleplay to the imagination. What do they have now? Star Wars Lego, Batman Lego, Spiderman Lego, Indiana Jones Lego. All their top-sellers now are riding on the success of film franchises. Hallmark has somehow been missing this, even though it's how they did it the first time around.

Regarding change... sorry to say, but very close to 100% of the time, the only times I've seen change happen, it's been for the worse. However, I wouldn't let that interfere with this. As I already said, there a dozen or so updated designs (yep... that means CHANGE) for RB which have appeared on deviantart and these boards, that I would be quite comfortable with seeing as the official redesign. So I'm certainly not saying that any change would be bad.

On the artistic preference for a teenage redesign, well, you're probably right about people wanting RB to grow up with them, but I think it's for the wrong reason. I had a similar discussion about this regarding the announcement of an upcoming Superman 'reboot', and about why the "Superman Returns" film bombed.

Given the astounding commercial success of the grim and gritty Dark Knight, Robinov says Warners's upcoming DC movie slate is "going to try to go dark to the extent that the characters allow it," and the next Superman movie will be no exception.

Now a brief, stripped-down excerpt from that discussion (it applies to all superheroes, not just Superman)

For a great deal of storytelling history, superheroes were people that society could look up to, and aspire to be more like. Even if we couldn't achieve the same great power of the superheroes, we could still follow their example, and do what is within our capabilities. The problem here is we no longer want that. To aspire to be like a Superhero forces us to look into ourselves and see how we can improve. Classic superheroes make us look bad... really bad. Superman has enough power to bring humanity to its knees without even breaking a sweat, yet he treats us with all the gentle handling and etiquette of a boyscout helping an old lady across the street, regardless of how stressed out he might be. Of course nobody in modern society likes that. We'd much rather have Michael Douglas in "Falling Down." We want a hero who would do exactly what we would do. We want our idols to tell us that we don't need to improve. Maybe if Superman had beat the living tar out of Lex Luthor in a police interrogation room the way Batman did to the Joker, people would be more accepting of him. In fact, I'd bet my money on it. Superman simply isn't made of the stuff that an impulse-based society can relate to. The same goes for his main character flaw: lonliness. In a reality where we will do anything, ANYTHING to fit in and be accepted, how can we possibly relate to an orphaned alien living on a foreign world who won't abandon his concept of good & evil no matter what? Quite obviously, we can't.

So why is Rainbow being depicted the way she is in fan art? Simple. It's what the fans of her turned into when they grew up. And I don't just mean taller and more anatomically-developed. You'll also notice that quite a few of the drawings don't just add breasts to her, they also have her intentionally drawing attention to them; both with the posing, and with a tighter, more revealing outfit. And there are other images that take this idea far further.. This is being done because many of these fans are more perverted (one of the rather common side-effects of growing up, particularly in the modern age). As a result, this is what the fans want from their more grown-up superhero: to make them feel better about themselves. And there's no need to stop at fanart to support this theory. On Robot Chicken, she's shown off her undies, chugged scotch, cut Murky & Lurky to pieces with a chainsaw. And then there's those skanky Halloween Costumes that have come out in the past few years, which have been stunningly popular sellers.

No, I don't think the fans are trying to tell themselves that growing up changes nothing. Growing up has already changed them, and they know it. As a result, they're trying to tell themselves that growing up also changes the shimmering superheros just as it did them. If a child superhero that one looks up to, survives the transition to adulthood unchanged, it would undoubtedly instill the individual with a sense of failure.

As for what you asked about having faith in Rainbow, of course I do. But we're not talking about HER, we're talking about a corporation. As Babydoll has explained in great detail, corporations are going to do what's popular. If the original Rainbow, even in personality, is no longer marketable, then there is very little chance of a company taking a chance on that. Their prime directive is to generate profit, not morality.

I preferred dolls that were either...

1) In the realm of high fantasy, completely dissociated from myself and my world. Actors in a drama, characters to drive a plot. I, in a similar process to the way I write now, was an omniscient observer, orchestrating the plot but not a character in the story (one reason I don't write in first person).

Not sure if it might be relevant to why we're not seeing eye-to-eye on some of these things, but I might as well comment on this and tell you that both I and a lot of my playmates could quite often imagine ourselves as characters in a high-fantasy world. In fact we used live-action roleplaying more often than we used action figures/dolls. The only times I resorted to those toys really was for solitary play. Even my avatar, is a bit of a homage to my childhood aspirations of becoming some kind of inter-stellar warrior. I also might as well tell you (in case you didn't know from reading some of my other posts) that I'm male. But that doesn't mean I can't hold somewhat of a feminine outlook on certain things. I like a number of things that 99% of society would deem far too girly for me to be into without it being caused by some kind of severe psychological disorder.

2) Adult women or on the threshold of adulthood. They were decidedly feminine, they were beautiful, they embodied all the physical qualities little girls aspire to have when they grow up. Don't you worry about the shallow factor, either; smart girls will have smart heroines. Mine were always on the road, seeking adventure, doing useful things, challenging the constraints of society...the beauty, that was just an added bonus. Indulgent fantasy, if you will. The belief perhaps that everyone will see your inner beauty if you're a good person. Dolls are static objects and must display those traits symbolically, on the outside, but every child knows her doll is a good person anyway, right? (Unless you're playing the villain.)

I'm not sure if this example also includes some high-fantasy elements or not. For characters like Ariel, I'd tend to think yes, but I'm guessing you're referring to characters/plotlines that a bit more down-to-Earth, such as Jem. All your specific examples except for Barbie (ok, you mentioned Stacy & Kelly too but it seemed to be more of an afterthought) are very whimsical in nature. Until I'm certain, I won't comment too much more on this, except to say that I never had a problem with adult heroes. If I did, I'd have been limited to a VERY narrow realm of entertainment. Regarding the beauty stuff, you went much further into it later in your post, so I'll comment on it there.

Fact is, having mostly grown up dolls to play with, I didn't have much anxiety about growing up myself. Certainly I enjoyed the Peter Pan story a lot better than I do now, but I never had that dread of aging that the story hinges on. Change was a good thing if it brought me closer to the beauty of Ariel, who was my idol at the age of six. Too many people in this world grow out of their toys, something I find very sad. But I've also encountered a good many people on the internet who wallow in their nostalgia and only ever talk about their toys with that whiny refrain: "I miss my childhood." This is perplexing to me. I am now 23 and every year I have grown, it's brought me new experiences and new wisdom to shape my philosophy about the world. I don't collect toys and watch cartoons to deny that I have grown older. I think a healthy way to play with toys is not to deny any part of yourself, but to connect your life in an unbroken circuit, acknowledge that you are all the ages you ever were, that you're also an adult with an adult intelligence...capable of writing novels, for example.

Heh, I always tended to think that a lot of the point behind many toys is the preparation of children for the adult world. In fact, I'd say toys are even more crucial than a lot of the academic training, because kids can learn a lot more about what will be expected of them in their adult lives by pretending to be adults. So I'm really not shocked that you didn't have anxiety about growing up. Very few people EVER do. But your lack of fear of growing up may also be the result of your unique philosophy on the subject. You see no reason for growing-up to strip away the better part of your former self. This is something that, as you said, hardly anyone does.

You find it sad, perhaps even wrong, that people become too old... or more accurately BELIEVE they've become too old, for childish things, which I very much agree with. I think you're misinterpreting the "I miss my childhood" sentiment though. Though I can totally relate to the desire to be physically younger, (and I think just about everyone can, just because of the additional freedoms that come from it vs. being old, needing 5 minutes just to walk out the door to the car, and being on a super-strict diet/exercise routine for health reasons, not to mention fear of Death depending on your personal views), this isn't the great tragedy of aging in my opinion. It's what you already stated: the total abandonment of childhood instead of achieving a healthy balance between childishness and responsibility. I see this being the same tragedy that is metaphorically referred to in Peter Pan (in case you are, do NOT use the Disney Cartoon as a basis, read the novel and learn a little about the author to see what his inspiration was). The reason the nostalgics are crying to have their childhood back, isn't simply referring to a personal physical transformation: it's referring to everything that goes with it.

You say you still play with toys/dolls, but I don't know to what extent. Feel free to elaborate on this, because I'd like to know if you, at age 23, are actually not above pulling some dolls out, and play-acting with them. If you actually do that, then you are a rare creature indeed. And if you do things like this, I'm equally interested in knowing if you have ever found anyone to play with. This is where the nostalgics' cry for a return to childhood is focused: not on themselves, but on their environment. On days when I'm visiting my folks, I see children out the window playing on the same street that I once did, and it is downright painful to know that I can't go out there and join them; not because I'm physically/emotionally/mentally unable to, but because any parent who peered out the window and saw it would immediately go into a complete panic. And even if the parents didn't, the kids in all likelyhood would, because of warnings from parents, teachers, etc. This has of course, nothing to do with WHAT I am, only what I appear to be. Paranoia about pedophelia is at an all-time-high, and shows no sign of calming down any time soon. And even if it did, it's never completely going away. And because the disorder can't be detected in a person prematurely, there's only one way to spot a pedophile: look for an adult person with an interest in children. "Oh... how lovely. Alright, well, we might as well continue playing tag until the cops get here... you're it!"

Now at this point, you're probably thinking, "What's the big deal? Just play with people your age." Therein lies the problem. People my age don't play. Oh sure, they'll play sports and video games, but of all the other childhood stuff, adults always feel "too old" for it. For anyone who longs to have a simple innocent child-like aspect to their life, the pedophelia "witch-hunt" turns the outer shell of an adult into a curse. You're told you're not allowed to enjoy something, solely based on of your physical appearance. In any other scenario in the modern world, this would be viewed as blatant discrimination, worthy of a nasty court case, but because it's being done to protect children, this fact is and will forever be completely ignored.

Luckily, I have had the fortune of meeting and befriending a handful of children during my adult life, and also the fortune of their parents eventually understanding what I was (even if they were nervous at first). But all of these incidents were the result of me being approached by children rather than the other way around. Even then though I've always known I was playing with fire, or perhaps more accurately, a rotweiler. They're really sweet and fun, but there's always the chance that it might suddenly decide to tear your face off. All someone would've had to do is have a momentary surge of vindictiveness, make a false allegation, and legal Hell would've been unleashed. Thankfully, I'm a total financial loser, unlike a certain condemned pop singer, which greatly reduces the advantages of spinning wild tales.

As for finding adults who look at childhood the way I do (and I've done a lot of searching), in my whole life, I've only ever met two. One is my current girlfriend and future wife, "TheWendybird" on this forum. The other may very well have been deceiving me anyway, so there's a good chance that I've only ever found one.

There is still a lot of gender objectification in this world, and that's very unfortunate. If a woman is perceived as being too beautiful and paying too much attention to her appearance, let alone too "girly," she is not taken as seriously as the less girly types. I don't support the slutty bratz look, but why is it so wrong for a doll like Rainbow to have a feminine body? Should we be instilling that kind of shame into our little girls? There is nothing inherently sexual about having a big chest unless you dress inappropriately, yet when they see it on a doll, people complain. So...why not? Let's see what "tween" Rainbow looks like. Let's be comfortable with our adulthood. I think Hallmark knows what they're doing. They're catering to all the age groups at once. Most little girls nowadays like to have dolls that embody their latent femininity. Us Gen-X'ers have grown up knowing that Rainbow Brite didn't grow up with us. Isn't it fun even in the slightest to see her finally catch up to us?

Alright, I must be misinterpreting this part completely, because it seems like you just stepped into bizarro-world. About not being taken seriously for being too girly, I 'guess' maybe you're talking about the proverbial giggly blonde. As for women being condemned for trying too hard to look beautiful... I have a rather off-topic question: is your planet close enough to Spectra to see it with the naked eye, or do you need binoculars? I have never lived in this world you speak of. When was the last time you watched "Entertainment Tonight?" I see beautiful women idolized and practically worshipped by our society. Go and tell Jessica Simpson about this contempt for women who are too beautiful. She gained ten pounds, and the press, critics, and fans all ran out to warn Godzilla that a new contender was in town. Beauty magazines are photoshopping flab out of photographs. Certain TV stations have spent millions on cutting-edge technology that can enlarge the breasts of their news anchors, automatically in real-time for live broadcasting. There's china's little switcheroo with the little girl who "sang" at the Olympic Ceremonies. Britney Spears just made an epic comeback after being completely out of her mind for years, and she summarized her grand resurrection in one of the sickest songs she's ever done (I'm sure you know the one I'm talking about. I'll refrain from posting a link to it here for the benefit of any kiddies who go to this site). One of the verses in a nutshell is telling the world that it doesn't matter what she's done... she's hot, and that's all that matters. You mentioned early on about the hope (hinted at by heroines) that people will see past the physical and realize your inner beauty as long as you're a good person. Society's obsession with celebrities has more than proven the exact opposite: As long as you're gorgeous on the outside, you can be as ugly as the city of Sodom on the inside.

My issue with Rainbow being more 'mature' (and I mean that physically) isn't an aesthetic issue, since there are artists who's "teen" depictions of Rainbow I have been OK with the look of. For one, it's the clash with the story. Either A: Rainbowland is a Neverland-type place where nobody gets older, or B: Everyone who lives there is immortal and doesn't grow old anyway. The color kids are at least 600 years old, according to their dialogue while discussing the Monstromurk (and the nature of their job suggests they've probably been around since the birth of Humanity). The years have sure been kind to them, eh? :p Additionally, as a result of this, a child-like figure doesn't automatically equal being mentally/emotionally child-like. They're able to take care of themselves quite well without parental supervision. They do chores, they cook, they tend gardens, they have complex relationships, and they make responsible decisions. For them, being physically "five" isn't much of a hindrance, and there's really no need for them to grow. But that doesn't mean they aren't still gaining experience from their countless years. And again, about dissing the "beauty" aspect of aging, I'm not opposed to beauty in general. Trying too hard to be perfect though is giving into society's obsession with things that shouldn't even factor into social stature. This same obsession drives women to wear clothing for no reason other than its brand name (if I see someone carrying ONE more purse with those 2 frigging inter-woven letter C's...) Now, honestly though, why SHOULD the quest for perfect beauty be looked at as noble? Using makeup to conceal blemishes (humans have pores! OMGZ!!!!), getting breast implants/reductions, using clothing pieces that force the body into tighter shapes, having abs spray-painted onto skin? These kind of changes are purely illusionary... FAKE. Why should deception for social gain EVER be glorified? Why is this even considered beautiful in the first place?

But then, I find the original Rainbow design to be beautiful. And with the update, my problem isn't so much the body type, it's the face. Something about it looks fake and superficial. Her expression borders on insincere. So forgive me if I'm a bit uneasy about it.

[Cypher]

Thank you very much for taking the time to respond to all this, Starvoyager, and no need to apologize for the length--mine was rather long-winded too. I acknowledge and respect your opinions on the new Rainbow, and will respond as soon as I have more time because, as happens in any human dialogue, I feel that there is after all a bit of misinterpretation going on in the way you interpreted a few of my comments. But I really appreciate the time you took to think deeply about that huge mess I wrote up there and to disseminate it one idea at a time. I'll try to keep it shorter too, for everyone's sake, but you had a lot of important things to say and I want to make sure I give them the thought they deserve. Gotta go for now, but since we started out discussing the toy and you're a diehard, I will say that I wouldn't have been opposed to a relaunch of the original Rainbow exactly as she looked in the 80's. I'm not opposed to the redesign either until I see actual prototypes. I'm happy with it either way. Will get back to this...

[FanChan]

A part of this post caught my eye, and I have to say something about it.

Alright, I must be misinterpreting this part completely, because it seems like you just stepped into bizarro-world. About not being taken seriously for being too girly, I 'guess' maybe you're talking about the proverbial giggly blonde. As for women being condemned for trying too hard to look beautiful... I have a rather off-topic question: is your planet close enough to Spectra to see it with the naked eye, or do you need binoculars? I have never lived in this world you speak of. When was the last time you watched "Entertainment Tonight?" I see beautiful women idolized and practically worshipped by our society. Go and tell Jessica Simpson about this contempt for women who are too beautiful. She gained ten pounds, and the press, critics, and fans all ran out to warn Godzilla that a new contender was in town. Beauty magazines are photoshopping flab out of photographs. Certain TV stations have spent millions on cutting-edge technology that can enlarge the breasts of their news anchors, automatically in real-time for live broadcasting. There's china's little switcheroo with the little girl who "sang" at the Olympic Ceremonies. Britney Spears just made an epic comeback after being completely out of her mind for years, and she summarized her grand resurrection in one of the sickest songs she's ever done (I'm sure you know the one I'm talking about. I'll refrain from posting a link to it here for the benefit of any kiddies who go to this site). One of the verses in a nutshell is telling the world that it doesn't matter what she's done... she's hot, and that's all that matters. You mentioned early on about the hope (hinted at by heroines) that people will see past the physical and realize your inner beauty as long as you're a good person. Society's obsession with celebrities has more than proven the exact opposite: As long as you're gorgeous on the outside, you can be as ugly as the city of Sodom on the inside.

Maybe it is a matter of complete mis-interpretation, or it could just be the fact that you haven't been there (and can't, being male). This all boils down to discrimination. As much of a not-radical-feminist as I am, I'll still be the first to say that women are still discriminated against. The only difference between now and fifty years ago is that we can make a legal fuss about it.



It amuses me that you bring up Jessica Simpson to try to make your point. Sure, she makes millions, she's successful, she's famous, but no one's denying that. No one's denying that beauty can get you ahead in life. But come on. When's the last time you, or anyone, took Jessica Simpson seriously. Part of her whole image is being the ditzy blonde that no one pays any serious attention to. If she really is that way, then that simply prooves that money and a good agent are all you need in Hollywood. However, I question if she's really that way, in the same light that Ozzy Osbourne is not as much of an imbucile as his reality show made him out to be (I've seen the guy in concert, he's quite put together and is fairly easy to understand, it's just that his tv image relies on something else). If that's the case with JS, then that rather prooves our point - no one cares about a gorgeous blonde with smarts.



Now, to the original point - beauty, taking extra care of yourself, plastic surgery; none of these things will make a woman a surgeon, or an astronaut, or a physicist. In fact, taking extra care of your appearance often causes your colleagues or future colleagues to look down on you, precisely because of the Hollywood portrayal of beauty=ditzy that you see in Jessica Simpson and Britney Spears. In fact, if a beautiful woman does make it high up on the corporate ladder, it's generally assumed by those involved that she has a daddy with a lot of money, a really good lawyer pulling the discrimination card, or that she slept with someone. You don't think that way, and maybe you've never been able to be present in such a situation to experience it first-hand, so you can't see how other people would think that way, but I'll tell you that it happens. Often.



We live in such a politically correct time that open discrimination is most times absent; but what we have no is far worse. We have discrimination that's harder to proove, harder to see, so those who don't experience it, such as yourself, don't believe it's there. I used to think discrimination against black people was all but gone except in hicks and white supremists, until I started talking about it with a certain black friend of mine (one who does not in any way - save for loving fried chicken, but who doesn't - emmulate the black stereotypes). He opened my eyes to the little ways it happens, the lack of eye-contact, moving to the other side of the street, women shifting their purse to the far side. These aren't things anyone else would notice; some of these people probably don't even realize they do it (I was guilty of some of them without realizing it); but when it's happening to you, you notice, and it hurts a whole hell of a lot worse than just having someone out and out saying it where everyone can hear. I, for one, make it a point not to do those things, to make eye contact, smile, engage in conversation, any time I can, with everyone.



Little things of this sort happen to women, too. Especially when they're beautiful. You may not see them, but they're there. I'm not talking about chivalrous actions - opening the door, helping carry a heavy load, etc, I approve of these things - but things like ignoring a woman when she offers to help a group of men with something, especially if it's an activity considered 'masculine', such as fixing a car, or hauling heavy things.



I will say one thing. I think Affirmative Action was the worst thing that could have ever happened to minorities, including women (not to mention what it's done to white males). In a white-male dominated position, if there is a woman or someone of a different race, it's often assumed that they were only hired due to AA, and so aren't taken as seriously, or given as much important work as other people. And heaven forbid they actually are there due to AA, and aren't suited for the job. That only reinforces the idea. AA tells us that we can't get the position without a little bit of help. We can't compete with the white male, so why try? Just slap down the discrimination/minority card and you can get what you want, whether you're qualified or not (to a certain extent). It also cheats those white males who worked hard their whole life, are perfectly qualified for the job, more qualified than anyone else, but the company needs to meet their AA quota, and so give the job to someone less qualified. I'm sorry, but that just doesn't work for me.





Okay, so, I should say something about Rainbow Brite in here somewhere, right?



RB was a huge role model in my young life. She was strong, smart, taken seriously by her comrades (save for Krys at first, who rather emmulated the whole 'women can't possibly do a man's job' philosophy), and at the same time was absolutely beautiful. She wasn't afraid of getting dirty and threw her whole self into the situation, no matter how dangerous. She was spunky, with a fantastic personality. That's what I loved about Rainbow Brite, that's what I tried to become growing up. I like to think I achieved that.



I personally don't see that in the new Rainbow Brite design. But we only have one or two pieces of art to go by. I like that she's pretty, I just hope they don't make her too girly, those aspects of Hollywood femininity I've always tried to escape - the gobs of make-up, the extra-perfect hair, the fear of getting dirty, etc. Hopefully they will use the internet or something of that sort to give her some kind of personality so girls can actually have a role-model that exists beyond just the aesthetics of dolls.



Also, just on a totally other aspect of my observations of the art, is it just me, or does Starlite look to have shrunk in the process of growing Rainbow up? I don't know if that was just to balance the piece of artwork, so Starlite isn't overbearing, but he looks a bit pony-ish, despite the still-skinny legs.

[TheWendybird]

A part of this post caught my eye, and I have to say something about it.

Alright, I must be misinterpreting this part completely, because it seems like you just stepped into bizarro-world. About not being taken seriously for being too girly, I 'guess' maybe you're talking about the proverbial giggly blonde. As for women being condemned for trying too hard to look beautiful... I have a rather off-topic question: is your planet close enough to Spectra to see it with the naked eye, or do you need binoculars? I have never lived in this world you speak of. When was the last time you watched "Entertainment Tonight?" I see beautiful women idolized and practically worshipped by our society. Go and tell Jessica Simpson about this contempt for women who are too beautiful. She gained ten pounds, and the press, critics, and fans all ran out to warn Godzilla that a new contender was in town. Beauty magazines are photoshopping flab out of photographs. Certain TV stations have spent millions on cutting-edge technology that can enlarge the breasts of their news anchors, automatically in real-time for live broadcasting. There's china's little switcheroo with the little girl who "sang" at the Olympic Ceremonies. Britney Spears just made an epic comeback after being completely out of her mind for years, and she summarized her grand resurrection in one of the sickest songs she's ever done (I'm sure you know the one I'm talking about. I'll refrain from posting a link to it here for the benefit of any kiddies who go to this site). One of the verses in a nutshell is telling the world that it doesn't matter what she's done... she's hot, and that's all that matters. You mentioned early on about the hope (hinted at by heroines) that people will see past the physical and realize your inner beauty as long as you're a good person. Society's obsession with celebrities has more than proven the exact opposite: As long as you're gorgeous on the outside, you can be as ugly as the city of Sodom on the inside.

Maybe it is a matter of complete mis-interpretation, or it could just be the fact that you haven't been there (and can't, being male). This all boils down to discrimination. As much of a not-radical-feminist as I am, I'll still be the first to say that women are still discriminated against. The only difference between now and fifty years ago is that we can make a legal fuss about it.



It amuses me that you bring up Jessica Simpson to try to make your point. Sure, she makes millions, she's successful, she's famous, but no one's denying that. No one's denying that beauty can get you ahead in life. But come on. When's the last time you, or anyone, took Jessica Simpson seriously. Part of her whole image is being the ditzy blonde that no one pays any serious attention to. If she really is that way, then that simply prooves that money and a good agent are all you need in Hollywood. However, I question if she's really that way, in the same light that Ozzy Osbourne is not as much of an imbucile as his reality show made him out to be (I've seen the guy in concert, he's quite put together and is fairly easy to understand, it's just that his tv image relies on something else). If that's the case with JS, then that rather prooves our point - no one cares about a gorgeous blonde with smarts.

I think I need to make a comment about this. Starvoyager is my boyfriend...very close on fiancee and I can tell you that he definately knows where you are coming from on this...I showed him the music video on youtube of Jessica's of "These Boots are Made for Walkin'" because I know more about the general pop culture icons than he does (though I don't like them anymore than he does) Neither of us pity Jessica Simpson...BUT I think he is right in that it is a good example of how people view girls in society. I can tell you from my own personal experience..I'm not huge...I had 2 or 3 chubby years in school and I was analyzed to death by my classmates the same way Jessica is analyzed in the media and so while she is rather a ditz and used her body before to make it big (as the video I mentioned above will show you) it does encourage people to feel comfortable in analyzing people in real life by that standard. I'm probably about her size in those photographs. I don't know if you could tell from the photos you saw in the Post Your Picture Thread or not...but most people consider me a normal weight. There are some in my life however...that because I'm not a size 4 like I was at 17....that I am "fat". One time I said something about Britney Spears around someone because I thought her voice was nasal.....fair assesment...i didn't even really say anything horribly bad just that I didn't like her voice (tho some of her songs I like) and the guy said "Well at least she's well proportioned"...in a tone that made it quite obvious he was saying stuff about me..as later on when i put on a little more weight he outwardly told me so. It's not really the matter they do it to someone who puts themselves under the microscrope like she does by prancing around in bikinis in her videos or anything but...this IS what people get compared to. So I think it's fair to use it as an example cause I see the same attitude from people about every day people.

Now, to the original point - beauty, taking extra care of yourself, plastic surgery; none of these things will make a woman a surgeon, or an astronaut, or a physicist. In fact, taking extra care of your appearance often causes your colleagues or future colleagues to look down on you, precisely because of the Hollywood portrayal of beauty=ditzy that you see in Jessica Simpson and Britney Spears. In fact, if a beautiful woman does make it high up on the corporate ladder, it's generally assumed by those involved that she has a daddy with a lot of money, a really good lawyer pulling the discrimination card, or that she slept with someone. You don't think that way, and maybe you've never been able to be present in such a situation to experience it first-hand, so you can't see how other people would think that way, but I'll tell you that it happens. Often.

This I do agree with...thing me and Starvoyager are arguing is the view of beautiful. Why do people think they need to change Rainbow's look to a more Barbie-esque look to make her more appealing? I think the original Rainbow is beautiful....it's a commentary on our society when little girls need to see someone be a certain shape with a certain look to be considered beautiful. You ever see the Dove soap campaigns to make girls feel better about themselves? The commercials always show girls of all shapes and sizes and colors etc....With the new design...it should have been unnecessary I think is the point. I certainly don't disagree with you on the fact that beautiful women are thought to be more stupid or whatever...I completely agree with you....but at the same time why does this mean they have to change Rainbow? She was already beautiful...the problem lies in societies view of what beauty is. Beauty is not one mold.

We live in such a politically correct time that open discrimination is most times absent; but what we have no is far worse. We have discrimination that's harder to proove, harder to see, so those who don't experience it, such as yourself, don't believe it's there. I used to think discrimination against black people was all but gone except in hicks and white supremists, until I started talking about it with a certain black friend of mine (one who does not in any way - save for loving fried chicken, but who doesn't - emmulate the black stereotypes). He opened my eyes to the little ways it happens, the lack of eye-contact, moving to the other side of the street, women shifting their purse to the far side. These aren't things anyone else would notice; some of these people probably don't even realize they do it (I was guilty of some of them without realizing it); but when it's happening to you, you notice, and it hurts a whole hell of a lot worse than just having someone out and out saying it where everyone can hear. I, for one, make it a point not to do those things, to make eye contact, smile, engage in conversation, any time I can, with everyone.

As Starvoyager pointed out before we are part of what seems to be a very rare group of people...we know what it feels like to be looked at in certain circumstances and have people act weird...my own family does it to me for gods sake.....I agree the things like black stereotypes is retarded...i'm not in the least racist....but at the same time...some people of other races CAN BE (but not always..therefore stereotypes are bad yes) overly sensitive to absolutely nothing......We were walking to a restaurant over the weekend and we had to walk downtown...I will openly admit I looked at this group of "black guys" when we were walking but not for too long...let me explain why though....

When I walk around naturally I look around..this is naturally what most would do...but from what I can tell from the past...sometimes they take it as "WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING AT?" when in fact by looking at them you are doing nothing any different than you would with anyone of your "race" or another...Starvoyager I think has more to add on this about his thoughts. I've talked with many "black people" and "asian people" etc...I was pretty good friends with a small group of asians in my high school and I have two cousins who are black as well as a couple blacks in my school (though I will say my school was mainly white)...I only bring up these "labels" because of what we're discussing but when I'm talking to them I don't think of race or anything they are simply my friends or family. That being said...strangers on the street it's impossible to know how they might react because unfortunately I have seen "blacks" who do get uppity...you could have the nicest intention while giving a smile or a nod while walking by but they sometimes DO take it the wrong way. Just as I'm sure there have been girls i may have passed by that might have thought i was a lesbian for the same reasons LOL If you get the picture...I've always had a hard time making eye contact with people I just pass by anyhow because I know people can take things the wrong way...sometimes it's nothing to do with race at all.

Speaking of race...does anyone agree with me that the term race for skin color and eye shapes etc is the stupidest thing ever? I always thought we were the "human race" we just have different looks...I guess kinda like this idea of beauty that we are talking about..there is not just one kind of beauty...just as there is only one human race with a wide variety of looks. I guess that would be an okay comparison for me to try and make my point.

Little things of this sort happen to women, too. Especially when they're beautiful. You may not see them, but they're there. I'm not talking about chivalrous actions - opening the door, helping carry a heavy load, etc, I approve of these things - but things like ignoring a woman when she offers to help a group of men with something, especially if it's an activity considered 'masculine', such as fixing a car, or hauling heavy things.



I will say one thing. I think Affirmative Action was the worst thing that could have ever happened to minorities, including women (not to mention what it's done to white males). In a white-male dominated position, if there is a woman or someone of a different race, it's often assumed that they were only hired due to AA, and so aren't taken as seriously, or given as much important work as other people. And heaven forbid they actually are there due to AA, and aren't suited for the job. That only reinforces the idea. AA tells us that we can't get the position without a little bit of help. We can't compete with the white male, so why try? Just slap down the discrimination/minority card and you can get what you want, whether you're qualified or not (to a certain extent). It also cheats those white males who worked hard their whole life, are perfectly qualified for the job, more qualified than anyone else, but the company needs to meet their AA quota, and so give the job to someone less qualified. I'm sorry, but that just doesn't work for me.

I agree with this. For two reasons...the one you gave and the fact that (and I hope Starvoyager isn't upset i'm mentioning this...he might have wanted to bring it up himself but maybe he can elaborate) people like him have actually been FIRED...and told later they WERE better at the job....becuase they were REQUIRED to have a certain amount of people of another race on staff. He was told he was better suited for the job but the guy of the other race got it simply because of the fact he was another race. If they were going to do this couldn't they have at least picked someone who could do the job even better than Starvoyager?

Okay, so, I should say something about Rainbow Brite in here somewhere, right?



RB was a huge role model in my young life. She was strong, smart, taken seriously by her comrades (save for Krys at first, who rather emmulated the whole 'women can't possibly do a man's job' philosophy), and at the same time was absolutely beautiful. She wasn't afraid of getting dirty and threw her whole self into the situation, no matter how dangerous. She was spunky, with a fantastic personality. That's what I loved about Rainbow Brite, that's what I tried to become growing up. I like to think I achieved that.



I personally don't see that in the new Rainbow Brite design. But we only have one or two pieces of art to go by. I like that she's pretty, I just hope they don't make her too girly, those aspects of Hollywood femininity I've always tried to escape - the gobs of make-up, the extra-perfect hair, the fear of getting dirty, etc. Hopefully they will use the internet or something of that sort to give her some kind of personality so girls can actually have a role-model that exists beyond just the aesthetics of dolls.



Also, just on a totally other aspect of my observations of the art, is it just me, or does Starlite look to have shrunk in the process of growing Rainbow up? I don't know if that was just to balance the piece of artwork, so Starlite isn't overbearing, but he looks a bit pony-ish, despite the still-skinny legs.

And again you pretty much summed up me and Starvoyagers point...Rainbow was already beautiful...you think so too...the problem we both have with the new design is feeling they felt they needed to do this new design to "make her beautiful" to todays children. Children today shouldnt be brought up with this one shape and look of their characters making them think thats the only thing that's truly considered beautiful when we all know Rainbow was beautiful anyways...she doesn't need to look like Barbie. If they would just re-launch a new show or something along with the same old Rainbow it would probably do much better but they've apparently never tried this..they've only tried to sell her merchandise without trying to get the kids interested with a show. Ninja Turtles had a show, Jem and the Holograms had a show, My Little Pony had a show....Rainbow Brite..in her day..had the show....the problem was "Is Rainbow beautiful enough" of course she was...it was Hallmarks laziness in getting her name out there and well known to children again. This is why i don't want the new design..it feels it serves no purpose other than the fact they think kids need a toy they think is "beautiful"...when in reality companies like Hallmark are the very ones perpetuating the "stereotype" that beauty is only the hollywood star/barbie look. Rainbow is beautiful she didn't need the change and it only further damages children's view of beauty and themselves. When it comes down to it for years I had the same problem as a teenager..I was being told by society what was beautiful and I wanted to be that...ie Britney Spears and Jessica Simpson type of look...then I realized...I'm a big kid....why am I worrying about looking like them...i've been told my face still looks pretty much the same as it did when I was a child (pretty suiting considering I still think myself to be one) so now when I think about beauty...though I want to excersise and eat right to take care of my body....I might have low self esteem but deep down i know I'm right..and Starvoyagers right...and the Dove campaign is right..there is more than one form of beauty. If I have a little girl beauty to me....great....Britney Spears can kiss my butt. She can have her kind and I will have mine but i'm sick of the Britney Spears barbie type being forced on young children (and me by some people)..there is NO diversity anymore is my problem with the new design. Rainbow was different but she was beautiful and now she's a part of the Barbie and Bratz mold of beauty. I'm not saying get rid of every doll that looks more grown up but leave some room for the other beautiful characters too that don't fit that one mold. Now they're doing that to Rainbow...making her fit a mold that already exists and taking away someone who was beautiful in her own way and not "societies way". My cousin Nicole is 12 and she looks like she's 16...only about a year ago she still looked her age...what changed? She dresses more grown up and her hair style is more grown up. And that's fine but kids should be kids while they still can...kids today are in too much of a hurray to grow up. The way she acts with her friends is certainly not how people I knew at age 12 acted....kids are growing up too quick and I think that's exactly what the companies want.

P.S. I agree Starlite looks smaller somehow like a pony..it's weird....maybe we're just not use to seeing longer legs (the new Rainbows) on him as Rainbow was always so short.

[FanChan]

Heh, just look at Brian whenever he rode Starlite. He certainly didn't make Starlite shrink.

[TheWendybird]

Heh, just look at Brian whenever he rode Starlite. He certainly didn't make Starlite shrink.

Hrm I kinda felt Brian was 12 or under so...would that mean they're actually going to make Rainbow not only look older but actually be older? Sixteen or something perhaps?

[Chibi Rachy]

Heh, just look at Brian whenever he rode Starlite. He certainly didn't make Starlite shrink.

Hrm I kinda felt Brian was 12 or under so...would that mean they're actually going to make Rainbow not only look older but actually be older? Sixteen or something perhaps?

Brian was 10 in Peril in the Pits...he says that he's almost 11

[TheWendybird]

Heh, just look at Brian whenever he rode Starlite. He certainly didn't make Starlite shrink.

Hrm I kinda felt Brian was 12 or under so...would that mean they're actually going to make Rainbow not only look older but actually be older? Sixteen or something perhaps?

Brian was 10 in Peril in the Pits...he says that he's almost 11

Ah yes there you go...I always liked to think he was the same age as the number on his top haha But anyhow...I guess they've either aged Rainbow to be older than that or Starlite has shrunk?

[*C9*]

Or it could be it is just an example design. Will probably be fixed up.

I really like the new RB's outfit but I think her facial features need to be changed a bit to be a little more cute. The new SSC has her face a tiny bit but the rest went out the window so don't even say they are the same. it is only their faces now the pets seem to be dropped now too.