Tree Change Dolls

 

 

Tree Change Dolls Facebook

 

Tree Change Dolls Website

I love these dolls :)

A beautiful Australian woman removed these Bratz dolls faces and repainted them the way they could be. She added flat feet, and some modest, homespun clothing.

Pictures of these dolls went viral shortly after she shared them on her personal Facebook page. I think people love them for a lot of reasons. The dolls look soooo different, but nothing too significant is changed, not hair, not face shape, just the makeup and attitude.

I think I love them so much because they look like they've been set free. They look real. They look like they can see. They look like they could say something. They look innocent, curious, kind, intelligent, open. Not hard, closed off, frozen and unfeeling.

 

Doll makers would do well to take the viral-ity of these dolls into consideration.

 

But I think the change in these dolls resonates much more deeply for a lot of people. They raise interesting questions, that I think demand some heartfelt searching rather than easy answers. Which version of myself am I? How am I choosing to show myself? Do I bravely show my true self and not present/value myself as just a thing? Are the small, subtle things I choose to do/be making me more kind, intelligent and open? Or, are they making me into a cold, hard THING?

 

We deserve to speak and see and think and be modest. We are not things.

:* <3

"My Beautiful Woman"

Wacoal Thailand has produced a campaign called "My Beautiful Woman."  It's the sweetest!

Their slogan is:

"Women Are All Made Beautiful."

I love the three short videos they've produced.  There are a lot of "true beauty" campaigns out there, but this one is very special.  It focuses on selfless love as the thing that makes a woman beautiful.  In the films it shows three women who quietly sacrifice for those who need their help.  I know a lot of beautiful women:)

It reminds me of that scripture, Matthew 16:25   For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will^alose his life for my sake shall ^bfind it.

Let's interpret it a little bit differently: Whosoever will focus solely on herself shall not be beautiful: and whosoever will forget herself in the service of others will have true beauty.

Your Gaze Hits the Side of My Face

It's been on my mind lately.  A feminist theory called the "male gaze."  I don't like that saying it that way, because I'm not a feminist, and it's a completely inappropriate name.  One cannot assign the act of objectifying to an entire sex.  Isn't assigning bad qualities to a whole sex what feminism is so against?

"Your gaze hits the side of my face" by Barbara Kruger

So, let's just call it an objectifying gaze.  I love the piece above.  It so accurately portrays the feeling of receiving an objectifying gaze.  The "woman" here, is in fact, an object made of stone.  Not a real human.  Her cheeks are very shadowy, as if she's blushing, obviously uncomfortable.  Her chin is pulling inward, another universal sign of discomfort.  Her eyes are looking up, but her head is pointing down, showing discomfort; turning inward and trying to protect the vulnerable parts (neck, heart) of herself.  The words on the side are black and white, square, typed, evenly spaced, totally non-dynamic.  To read it, it should sound monotone and robotic; non-punctuated and void of emotion.  And the word "hits." It implies abuse, force.  It's not something interactive.  It's controlling and taking agency.  I like that the woman's eyes are still up.  She hasn't given up.  It's just she cannot endure the force of the gaze without some manifestations of how it affects her.  

There are a lot of arguments against the "male gaze" theory, but no one can deny that objectifying gazes exist.  One part of the theory I find particularly interesting is that people can "male gaze" at themselves; that is, view themselves not from their own perspective, but the perspective of a critical, objectifying person.  In this way, women give up their unique perspective and further buy into the idea that women are objects.

The movie Penelope, is a wonderful film exploring a lot of social theories, stigmas and interactions (it even passes the Bechdel test).  It's a story of personal growth and coming to full health.  It's about a young woman who has been told she is unacceptable because of the way she looks.  This idea has been reinforced over and over.  Eventually, she discovers against all odds that this idea is a lie.  She becomes accepted and starts building a life for herself.  The way she looks changes, and some people try again to tell her subtly and not-so-subtly that the way she looks makes her unacceptable or of lesser value.  This time she does not believe the lie for a minute and echo's one of the film's themes, "I'm still me."

Two parts in this film perfectly illustrate the objectifying gaze. To clarify, it's primarily her own learned self-objectifying gaze that she feels.  The things her Mom and her suitors have told her color her perception of herself.  This is made evident when it shows Penelope thinking over and over of the suitors that ran from her because they thought she was unacceptable. (35:54)  Penelope however, is not unacceptable.  She's smart, funny, polite, caring, and unique.  When she's being herself, she's adorable.  When she becomes a victim though, she gets paralyzed.

At 22:45, Penelope and Max are gazing at each other through a 2-way mirror.  Penelope meets his gaze momentarily, but then becomes self-conscious, or self-objectifying.  She can't meet his gaze anymore, gets ashamed and tries to hide her face.  The thing is, he can't even see her.  So it's not Max's gaze, it's her own self-objectifying gaze that she can't tolerate.  This is not her genuine gaze.  It's not how she inherently views herself.  It's how she views herself through the eyes of critical and objectifying people. 

It's true that it's not Max's fault.  That's a common argument from people who do objectify.  It's not their fault how their gaze is being perceived.  In this example, it's true that regardless of what Max's gaze meant, Penelope's reaction is not his fault.  But is that true of Penelope's mom and suitors?  No.  They are at fault to some degree.  They either made her feel inadequate by explicitly saying so or implicitly giving her social cues.  People who think you can't tell when someone looks at you critically usually don't understand social cues, and therefore do not think they exist.  In reality, social cues are given and interpreted, and they teach you how to think and feel.  If you don't want to internalize a message someone is sending, it takes a lot of cognitive power and external support.

At 32:10 Max sees Penelope for the first time.  He reacts, but his gaze is not objectifying.  Penelope, is again feeling the pressure of her self-objectifying gaze.  She displays a lot of the same body language as the woman in the piece by Kruger.  She is obviously uncomfortable, breathing rapidly head down chin pulled in, face tilted and expression very asymmetrical (symptomatic of a forced expression.  Natural expressions are symmetrical, which is why we like symmetrical faces, it shows proper socio-emotional adjustment.)  Max starts to move toward Penelope.  He doesn't want to objectify her, he wants to understand and know her for who she is.  The important part is that as he moves closer and starts to reach out to touch her, she does not panic.  Rather, she starts to relax.  Why?  He has a different kind of gaze.  Not judgmental, critical or objectifying.  It's a curious gaze, ready to learn and even accept and appreciate.  It's her gaze, the way she thinks she's worthy of being seen.  She starts to have a little trust in him that he won't objectify her.  Because as soon as he objectifies her, she's powerless before him.  As soon as she objectifies herself, she's powerless before herself.  It takes away her agency, her ability to choose how to act.  She becomes paralyzed.  The gaze "hits" the side of her face.  She becomes a helpless victim.  

Penelope eventually frees herself.  She frees herself from toxic people in her life until she has freed herself of their objectifying gaze that she has so internalized.  When she no longer has a self-objectifying gaze, it's much harder for people's opinions to affect her. What's the take home message?  I don't know. Maybe just to consider how you think about yourself and others.  And what if we lived in a world where we all looked the same, would your thoughts change?  NOT a world where we were all the same. A world where we still had different qualities and quirks, intelligence and humor.  Just a world where our appearances weren't the part of us most susceptible to judgement.  Kind of like how Penelope covers her face with a scarf.  She takes away her viewers' ability to judge her appearance.  And she starts to learn that she is very worthy of acceptance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9WfoJ5yQFc

(Hopefully the link is still available, if not, just go watch the movie, the whole thing's great!)

What If We Chose How We Look?

I was ready to leave for work this morning.  I had gotten all packed up for Thanksgiving break so I could head straight for home right after closing time.  I was standing in the living room, eating my cereal mentally scanning for anything I forgot to pack.  The sun was coming up and soft morning light was coming through the windows, and I could see the frost on my car outside.

I have a big, rectangular mirror hanging on the wall in my living room.  As I was finishing my cereal I absent-mindedly started gazing at myself. I was having those rolling, dreamlike thoughts, the kind you're barely aware you're having.  I had my hair pulled back in a bun with no make up on except a little red lipstick.
I was thinking to myself, "Yeah, I look pretty good:)  I like the way I look.  I mean, if I were choosing, I'd probably have tweaked a couple things a little differently...." Then I chuckled at the thought of my spirit in Heaven before I was born getting toddler-excited and picking out a bunch of crazy features:)

But then I stopped and thought, "Well, why not?"  I'm pretty dang sure this is false doctrine, so most def don't quote me in general conference when you become a general authority, but I thought, What if we did?  What if, in Heaven, we got to choose how we would look?  And everyone picked out what their tastes truly dictated was the most beautiful to them?  And we didn't think otherwise until we came to Earth and society imposed false standards on us and we lost our ability to see all beauty?  What if we are all the most beautiful?  And some of us just forgot? What if we picked everything about ourselves?

Food for thought:)

However, we are all created in the image of God by a loving Father in Heaven.  Isn't that kinda enough to make you accept the beautiful gift of your body?

Modesty: Not Just for the Sake of Others

There has been a lot of talk in the LDS community about modesty circulating around Jessica Rey's recent presentation on the evolution of the bikini.  There has been a lot of responses to her call to modesty, so here's mine:)

It's important for both men and women to be modest, but to keep it simple, we're going to talk about women in this post.


The ironically fine line between feelings of shame and of self-respect.

I feel that every girl who chooses to dress modestly has at one point or another asked herself if she does it because she loves and respects her body or if she is not confident enough to bare it.  I was raised by a mother who truly valued and taught me to value modesty, so I never had to struggle with wearing super immodest clothing, but I can definitely understand the feelings of something being just a little too revealing.  Something that maybe doesn't bother you a bit when you're in your home, but when you walk outside, you suddenly become aware that you are not dressed quite as you should be.  This induces a feeling of shame, and I think this is why it can be confusing to wonder if you are ashamed of your body. The world preaches that we should snuff out any uncomfortable feelings of shame by driving ourselves past feeling.  Many women do not feel uncomfortable in immodest clothing because they are past feeling uncomfortable about it. I think this sense of "shame" is actually a desire to protect something sacred. Honoring those feelings leads to self-respect.   Perhaps we were all born with some deep spiritual inkling that our bodies are sacred.  That they are a gift from God, something over which we have stewardship and need to protect.

You are not your own.

The new Miley Cirus song, "We Can't Stop" really bothers me, because it doesn't ring true. She says, "It's my mouth, I can say what I want to, it's our house, we can love who we want to..." etcetera. One of my favorite scriptures is 1 Corinthians 6:19 "Know ye not that...ye are not your own?"  We aren't our own.  We can't do anything we want and only have ourselves to answer to. We are only stewards over precious bodies that God has given us.  They belong to Him.  We all belong to Him, whether we know it or not.  To disrespect our own bodies is not harmless.  The same way we are careful with things people lend us, we should be careful with our bodies.


Objectification 

Objectification can be an illusive concept for people.  What does it mean to "objectify" someone, and why is it such a bad thing?  First, let's understand what a person is.  Every person, despite what they do, is a dynamic, living, breathing, thinking, creative, sacred, being, with potential beyond what we are capable of imagining.  They are to be respected, loved, and admired.  This starts with oneself. Objectification is when you take this sacred, dynamic being, and separate her into parts. Aristotle taught that "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts." Taking apart a person and measuring her by worldly standards is offensive to God and to our brothers and sisters.  It's offensive to take apart a miracle and and analyze it, compare, and measure it.  It's insulting, because it is so unrepresentative and ignorant of the whole.

To assign value to a part of the whole is truly like judging a book by its cover.  Perhaps the cover may give you a few clues about what lies beneath the surface, like the title and the description on the back; those parts of ourselves we show to the world.  But it really means nothing about what is under the surface.  If you want to understand a book, you must open it up and read.  No matter how long you stare and measure and compare the cover of a book, you can never know what it is, you can only speculate.  There are so many parts to a person.  To assign someone value based on their physical appearance is not reflective of the worth of the whole. It doesn't have to be physical appearance, but that's usually what it is.  It could be a specific skill, possession, or connection. The world teaches that we should compare and judge.  God teaches we should love one another and enjoy our differences. Deciding between these two teachings can be difficult because the world blares its message loud and clear, while God speaks with a still small voice.

To be immodest is to objectify yourself.  Like putting a book on display in a glass case.  People come to admire the cover, but now no one can really read it and get beneath the surface.  It sends a message that your body is the most important part of yourself.

Conversely, dressing modestly is a barrier to objectification, because it minimizes the importance of what you see on the surface.  If a book had one of those stretchy fabric covers on the front, wouldn't you be so much more likely to open it up and flip through the pages in order to find out what it is?  Not saying you have to be completely swathed in spandex:) but the idea is the same. It doesn't decrease the value of what's on the outside.  It increases the visibility of what's on the inside.  Dressing modestly doesn't mean you are ashamed of your body.  It means that you correctly understand that it's only one part of yourself, and that the other parts are worth getting to know.  That the whole is more than the sum of its parts:)

 If any man defile the temple of God him shall God destroy, 

for the temple of God is holy,

1 Corinthians 3:17

You may also like: 

In Defense of Dove's Real Beauty Campaign 

How Our Brain Interprets Media Imagery

In Defense of Dove's Real Beauty Campaign

http://realbeautysketches.dove.us/

There has been a LOT of backlash against Dove's Real Beauty campaign piece "Real Beauty Sketches."

I know there are flaws in this campaign.  But it is still such a good thing.  Such a powerful, bold thing.  I think critics overlook the good in this campaign in the frenzy to point out why it's not optimal.

I don't know if the way I interpret this is right, but I've spent a lot of time in my undergrad in public health learning about media messages and how our thought processes and emotions are affected by them.  This is what I think.

• Some of the things others have been criticizing that I don't think are worthy of criticism: use of beautiful women, focus on beauty as the most important value, lack of diversity, and they are created by a beauty company.

• Some of the things I see wrong with this campaign: research design, artist bias and reporter bias.

• Some of the things I see right with this campaign: focus on the emotions the women are feeling, focus on how destructive self-perception can be, bold stance against the beauty industry standard.

Let's get started. First, I want to clarify two points. (There's a whole post about how our brains interpret this.)  

Number one:  "Society" (meaning: industry, commercial ventures, media, cultural beliefs) tells us that beauty is a definable, measurable quality.  You can systematically rate how beautiful a woman is.

Number two: We are bombarded with the message every day of our lives that a woman's worth is measured by her beauty-- and it does affect us.

Soooo many women think they are above being affected by this.  It makes me sad.  Because rather than learning to rebel against the system, they feel guilty for worrying about their something as trivial as their appearance.  And they feel guilty for not being perfectly "beautiful." (Read The Beauty Myth by Naomi Wolf.)

Criticisms I think are invalid:

The campaign only uses traditionally beautiful women.    

I want to be very clear.  The women in this campaign are lovely.  None of them will ever model for Victoria's Secret.  

These women are short and tall, young and middle aged, big and small...they are different.  Have you ever seen a line up of models?  It's like they dyed one girl's hair a bunch of different colors and put new makeup on her for each image to save on model salaries.  They look EXACTLY the same.  The modeling industry is very explicit that there is only one standard for beauty, only one way to be beautiful.  If you don't fit the bill, well, you can try to buy products to turn you into that ideal so you'll look less embarrassing, but you'll still probably never measure up.

There is no diversity. 
Okay. The simple answer is that there is more diversity in this quick clip than in 10 hours of beauty advertisement. The women shown for the longest period of time are white or white-esque people.  White washing in the beauty industry is a big deal.  I would just like to point out (again) that there are women in this clip that are different.  They aren't all white-esque. Could it use more diversity?  Most def.  But there is some diversity of race, age and build.  No one can deny that.  Baby steps.  People don't seem to understand that this is a process.  If there were a bunch of traditionally unattractive, unkempt women ranting that beauty is not important, it would just reinforce that beauty IS important. (This also applies to those who criticize Dove for editing real beauty images.)

They focus on beauty as the most important value. 
People are so upset that Dove's message is "You are more beautiful than you think," rather than, "Beauty is not important, so stop thinking about it."  Sorry, Dove's mission isn't "How to Be a Great Human Being." We're talking about beauty here. That's why we're focusing on it and not other important qualities.  I don't think anyone working on the Dove campaign thinks beauty is more important than being a good person. But I mean, I don't know them all personally, so who knows?:)  This is a beauty campaign, it makes sense that it should focus on our ideas about beauty.  It's not a life campaign.  I just want that clarified.

It's created by Unilever. 
There have been complaints that since Dove is owned by Unilever, it's an untrustworthy campaign.  Once again, Dove is part of the beauty industry, something it's never sought to hide.  The campaign is by Dove, not Unilever.  Yes, the Dove company is owned by someone who owns other companies.  I don't think this is worth losing any sleep over.

Criticisms I have for the campaign:

The criticisms I have all deal with the research methods used in this "experiment." This experiment is not scientific.  They didn't want to test a hypothesis.  They set out to make this campaign piece and manipulated the data to prove the point that they wanted.  I'm not too worried about it, because I think it's a pretty universal truth that women are self-conscious when they should be more confident about their natural beauty, and about other aspects of themselves too, of course.

Participant selection:
Not random.  They had to volunteer, then the volunteers were weeded through, then the footage was weeded through until Dove had exactly the proper evidence to support the universal truth they set out to prove.  Not scientific.

Artist bias:
The artist was biased.  He stated that he was interested in the campaign and wanted to help women (his daughter included) learn to feel better about themselves.  He knew when he was drawing a woman describing herself and when he was drawing a woman described by the stranger.  He used a lot of artistic techniques that probably had nothing to do with the descriptions and more to do with proving the point that women are more beautiful than they describe themselves.


Reporter bias:
The strangers who described the women are here for a campaign to support true beauty.  Are they going to be that critical jerk that says the woman was ugly?  No.  They are going to focus on her positive, inviting attributes and happy, open personality.  Since they knew the basic purpose of the campaign, they weren't free to be totally unbiased.
The women who are describing themselves are also aware of the campaign.  They know perhaps, that they would be called out if they weren't totally honest about how they look, rather describing themselves as they hope or want to look.  Again, biased by knowledge about the campaign (if not about the specific experiment.)

Take home message: 
This "experiment" is biased, and not 100% reflective of real life. But I think the point they're trying to prove is valid: we often think our "flaws" are a big deal when they're really not.  So, they are trying to promote a good, healthy message, but they are going about it in a non-scientific way.

The Good Stuff

Whew, that was a lot of negativity!  Let's talk about the things that are right with this campaign:

The focus on emotion: 
The filming in this campaign is incredible.  It captures emotion.  It says things that words are not saying.  I love how accurately it shows the women as they are talking.  It shows the guilt, the embarrassment.  When the women are talking about what they would change about themselves, when they are admitting to possessing features that are not traditionally considered beautiful, their eyes flit nervously to the side and shamefully to the floor.  They bite their lips.  They fidget   They obviously look uncomfortable, embarrassed.  The point being, they shouldn't feel this way.  They are lovely.  They need not be so ashamed of their deviations from the prescribed epitome of beauty. It shows the smile fading as a woman realizes she doesn't think she's beautiful.  It shows a smile grow on a woman's face as someone describes her positively.  It shows a broken nail, messy mascara- the unending, unwinnable battle to be perfectly beautiful. This is why the campaign exists: to help women with these destructive emotions.


The focus on destructive self-perception: 
The Real Beauty campaign tries to help women understand that they worry way to much about being beautiful.  This is a good message.  It supports the criticism some have had that it should not focus on beauty as the most important thing.  * Reemphasize: if you're not worried about your appearance, it becomes much less important.  If you are worried that you're not beautiful enough to be accepted, successful, a good friend, a fun person...it will be a self fulfilling prophecy.

Bold stance against the beauty industry: 
Dove is a beauty company.  They sell soap, shampoo, deodorant and the like. But they are fighting against traditional messaging that you need a product to be more beautiful.  Since advertising has existed, the hook for beauty products has been: buy this.  It will make you more beautiful = accepted = happy.  Dove says, we support women the way they are. If you think that's good, support us by buying your toiletries from us.

And I totally do support that.  That's my stance.