Toys and body image.

Argument 1: "Evolving Ideals of Male Body Image as Seen Through Action Toys"
Harrison Pope, Robert Olivardia, Amanda Gruber, and John Borowieki argue a psychiatric view of action toys. They explain how these action toys are a reflection upon society's standards, and how they're a cause to men having negative body images. Collectively, they explain how as time has progressed, the size of male bodies in action toys has steadily increased. They gained this knowledge from measuring various body parts on the action toys (ie. biceps, chest, waist). Body dysmorphic disorder and muscle dysmorphia are two listed problems that the authors claim men deal with, that can cause them to be obsessed about certain body issues. These authors also expand on why the action toy image has changed, primarily relating it to the fact that overall people are more muscular than they were decades ago.

The tone of this argument is formal and reasoned. Most of the authors are graduates of Harvard, and are trying to make a scientific argument. They use measurements and dates for evidence, which makes their argument effective for people who want raw data to back them up. For example, the article mentions how "the earliest figure has no visible abdominal muscles; his 1975 counterpart shows some abdominal definition; and the 1994 figure displays...sharply rippled abdominals..."(pg.287). They give progressive dates to show the progressive change of the bodies. As audiences go, for this particular study i would pick a group of people interested in the facts, and people who want serious information of how toys have changes with their environment.

The assertions made in this article seem a little too far-fetched. I do believe that some ideas are credible, and that men do have body issues because of our culture, however connecting all that into toys seems almost ridiculous. They do have good evidence to back up their assertions though. I give them credit for that.

Argument 2: "G.I. Joe's Big Biceps are Not a Big Deal"
In deep contrast to the psychiatric view that the previous authors argue, Kim Franke-Folstad offers a less serious, and more personal perspective on Action Toys. Franke-Folstad claims her opinions about how ridiculous the psychiatrist of viewpoint (of Harrison Pope) is, and instead focuses on the fact that toys are toys. She emphasizes that it's better to have less realistic toys.

Franke-Folstad's tone is conversational and humorous. She focuses on telling the audience that looking at toys from a scientific perpesctive is absurd, because they are toys, and only toys. She's adament and very sure of herself in her assertions. For example she uses phrases like "Here we go again"(pg.292), referring to the size of G.I Joe's bicept being a "dangerous trend"(pg.292). She also says things like "But a plastic doll? To suggest that even little boys measure manliness by taking a ruler to their G.I.Joes is comical"(pg.292). An audience for this writer would have to have a sense of humor. I can see Franke-Folstad doing a comedy show about how absurd the Harvard assertions are. Franke-Folstad is effective in pressing her argument by being using casual language. She's not trying to make inferences about disorders men have , so she doesn't need to back up her evidence with years and measurements.

The assertions made in this article are just as extreme as the last. Both articles give the polar opposite views. In this article, the assertions were not from studies, but rather from the author's personal opinion. When i was a child my parents decided not to buy me any cooking/cleaning sets and toys because they thought that was influencing a certain role on me as a girl. Today i know that i dont have a "women stay at home and cook" viewpoint, but i think thats from the accumulated education i received growing up, and not so much the toys i played with when i was younger. In fact, i would have liked to have a kitchen set when i was little and enjoyed playing with them at my friends houses. Kitchen sets arn't the same as dolls and G.I. joes, but i think they idea is the same. I'm not sure that toys have such an impact on your body image, but i do agree that toys have changed in size because of how bodies have changed and standards have been raised.