3 ms·

This is a misrepresentation. 1) Critical Race Theory as a mainstay of scholarship is relatively new it it's broad intervention into all disciplines. 2) The 'b

by jariel 6y ago

This is a misrepresentation. 1) Critical Race Theory as a mainstay of scholarship is relatively new it it's broad intervention into all disciplines. 2) The 'big misrepresentaion' in your thesis is that you're alluding to some of the material value in the CRT lens (a kernel of truth) to posit it as the lens through which we should be understanding everything (the article used only CRT language to describe the dolls - nothing else). 3) By your own assertion, we're having to make some very broad assumptions about culture in order to draw conclusions, but in reality there isn't enough information to draw upon. The assertion made in the article that 'Dolls are used to reinforce genders stereotypes' is a secondary artifact of the dolls, and frankly it's an insult to scholarship because it has little to do with the dolls directly. Dolls were toys, used for a variety of reasons, the fact that those activities possibly reinforced gender roles is a secondary artifact. To represent that as 'the first truth' of the dolls is the giant CRT lie. A female commenter here on the board gave some insight when she indicated: "She used the dolls to mimic her mother" - which is something I never would have thought of. Now that's thoughtful. What we could infer from these dolls from antiquity is possibly how little has changed. The dolls, more than anything are probably just a reflection of society as a whole - like everything. By CRT logic, the first thing we should say about 'The Mona Lisa' is that Da Vinci was 'Reinforcing Gender Stereotypes of Feminine Beauty' The Statue of David? Michelangelo was 'Reinforcing Gender Stereotypes of Youthful Masculinity' Yes - there are elements of validity in CRT, but as soon as you start with that hammer, everything crumbles into nonsense. The article, as it stands, is rubbish, it has no intellectual value other than to give us a few nice photos to glean our own understanding.

bigbillheck 6y ago
I don't have any idea why you're bringing "Critical Race Theory" into this? I didn't think there was any analysis of race in the article, only gender? Critical Race Theory is not some kind of boogeyman that encompasses everything you don't like. > A female commenter here on the board gave some insight when she indicated: "She used the dolls to mimic her mother" - which is something I never would have thought of. Now that's thoughtful. I don't know what you consider "reinforcing gender stereotypes" means, but to me that's fitting the bill pretty solidly! The mother (presumably) acts in the way that her society expects of a woman, and in playing with the doll to mimic her mother the child is more deeply internalizing those ways. > By CRT logic, the first thing we should say about 'The Mona Lisa' is that Da Vinci was 'Reinforcing Gender Stereotypes of Feminine Beauty' OK, yeah, I'll bite: Da Vinci was comissioned by Francesco del Giocondo to paint a portrait of his wife Lisa del Giocondo. The thing about painting for patrons is you're supposed to make them look good. If you try to make Lisa dG look good, you're going to be relying on "gender stereotypes of feminine beauty". > The Statue of David? Michelangelo was 'Reinforcing Gender Stereotypes of Youthful Masculinity' David (in the "vs Goliath" version) is a young fit man armed with a sling. Furthermore, that David was often a symbol of Florence, and if Michelangelo (a Florentine) hadn't made him so youthful, fit, and masculine there might have been trouble. If you look at other depictions of David from that time, they're all stereotypically youthful, fit, and masculine (and sometimes horned up as in Donatello's second take). Michelangelo (and contemporaries) had similar ideas of what a young, fit, masculine person should look like and that's what they sculpted.
- jariel 6y ago
  The commenter brought up Critical Race Theory (or at least 'Critial Theory') I was responding to that. You're making my point for me: Every portrayal of society reinforces the norms in that society. So it's not 'scholarship' (or even relevant) to point it out the possibilities. In fact, to avoid talking about the more material issues, and to go right into indirect fuzzy issues of feminism is 'anti scholarship'. Not only that - it's probably false - as I pointed out, 'bad feminists' lament Barbies and more anatomically correct dolls at the same time, literally for opposite reasons. It's speculative ideological rubbish. If a 'gender theory' researcher actually wants to do some research and put some sound logic together, that's find, but otherwise it's just politics.

by jariel 6y ago

bigbillheck 6y ago

I don't have any idea why you're bringing "Critical Race Theory" into this? I didn't think there was any analysis of race in the article, only gender? Critical Race Theory is not some kind of boogeyman that encompasses everything you don't like. > A female commenter here on the board gave some insight when she indicated: "She used the dolls to mimic her mother" - which is something I never would have thought of. Now that's thoughtful. I don't know what you consider "reinforcing gender stereotypes" means, but to me that's fitting the bill pretty solidly! The mother (presumably) acts in the way that her society expects of a woman, and in playing with the doll to mimic her mother the child is more deeply internalizing those ways. > By CRT logic, the first thing we should say about 'The Mona Lisa' is that Da Vinci was 'Reinforcing Gender Stereotypes of Feminine Beauty' OK, yeah, I'll bite: Da Vinci was comissioned by Francesco del Giocondo to paint a portrait of his wife Lisa del Giocondo. The thing about painting for patrons is you're supposed to make them look good. If you try to make Lisa dG look good, you're going to be relying on "gender stereotypes of feminine beauty". > The Statue of David? Michelangelo was 'Reinforcing Gender Stereotypes of Youthful Masculinity' David (in the "vs Goliath" version) is a young fit man armed with a sling. Furthermore, that David was often a symbol of Florence, and if Michelangelo (a Florentine) hadn't made him so youthful, fit, and masculine there might have been trouble. If you look at other depictions of David from that time, they're all stereotypically youthful, fit, and masculine (and sometimes horned up as in Donatello's second take). Michelangelo (and contemporaries) had similar ideas of what a young, fit, masculine person should look like and that's what they sculpted.

jariel 6y ago
The commenter brought up Critical Race Theory (or at least 'Critial Theory') I was responding to that. You're making my point for me: Every portrayal of society reinforces the norms in that society. So it's not 'scholarship' (or even relevant) to point it out the possibilities. In fact, to avoid talking about the more material issues, and to go right into indirect fuzzy issues of feminism is 'anti scholarship'. Not only that - it's probably false - as I pointed out, 'bad feminists' lament Barbies and more anatomically correct dolls at the same time, literally for opposite reasons. It's speculative ideological rubbish. If a 'gender theory' researcher actually wants to do some research and put some sound logic together, that's find, but otherwise it's just politics.