That's life!

How many times have you read about the pettiness of local bureaucratic "rules?" Or wondered how small minded actions of the few, affect the day to day lives of the many. It's not just in your country, or mine for that matter. These do-gooders are everywhere. Sometimes they exasperate me, but occasionally I do have some sympathy, but often, small simple rules need to be sold, not told.

A year or so ago, a monastery of monks of an order that was over nine hundred years old, were banned from using very high step ladders to change the light bulbs on a chandelier that had hung over the high alter of their church. Originally the chandelier was candle lit, but at about the turn of the 20th century they went over to electric. In all the time that the monks have been replacing candles or changing light bulbs, not one has so much as slipped. But for the zealots in local authority, that meant for nothing, the fact is, they 'could' have. So now the monks have no lit chandelier.

So if you come across such narrow-mindedness share it with us, better still, if there's an e-mail address that we could give support/vent to, add that.

Today's story comes from the north of England, a town called Darlington, where the head teacher of the local academy school has asked parents, mainly mothers, to wear appropriate day wear to school. Kate Chisholm, head of Skerne Park Academy, Darlington, made the appeal after she noticed an increase in the number of parents wearing nightwear to the school gates, with some even wearing pyjamas to school assemblies and meetings. Since then there has been a massive protest from parents, as well as those on social media, in the main, in support of parents.

On this occasion my sympathies are with Kate Chisholm. If you don't show by example, if you don't take pride in your appearance, then don't expect your adult child to do well when they sit in front of a perspective employer for their first job interview. What's your take on this? You can read about the story here.

I think part of it is a move away from the revolution of 'individuality'. Certain social movements have gone too far and people recognize it, so perhaps these constructs are an attempt to bring back some cohesive social grace.

In the case of the school, I don't see a problem. If it is a private elite school, they have every right to determine things such as dress codes etc... They can even decide that only blue pants are allowed etc. It is a Private Institution. One has a choice to not attend and doesn't suffer the loss of overall education because of it. The problem would be if it reaches the public sector.

As for the monks case, there is a problem because the changing of the light bulbs on ladders may constitute part of their rituals and exercise. It is yet another PC nightmare gone wrong.

As a further example, look at what is happening with the "Barbie". This is PC disgusting twisted agenda at its finest. Listen, Barbie was NEVER meant to imitate real life women. She is an Imaginary Concept. That was the point of it when it was launched. It was a construct of beauty that is IMAGINARY. nothing more... Now, because of the twisted inflicted individuality, everyone counts movement, we now have this:



I mean, this is DISGUSTING.... The Worst part is they expect people to think they are doing it to make people aware there are various kinds of beauty.... That they are all special....

WRONG!!! SO WRONG!!!! It's about 1 Thing only: PROFIT, MORE PROFIT.... It infuriates me that people are so stupid to fall for corporate manipulation, and how its used by government officials to sway votes.

Look, I am short, petite, semi voluptuous, 5'3.5 with Hispanic or even Arab looking features. I NEVER EVER thought I was ugly or not a concept of beauty simply because I wasn't 5'9, long legs and blond. The thought never crossed my mind growing up and I played with Barbies All the time...

We live in Sick times indeed. Consumerism is Not the place to discover beauty, love or morals. It is discretionary. People have forgotten that.

I don't think it's any kind of "political correctness." It's pure, simple capitalism -- Mattel is trying to preempt any possible competitive line of realistically-proportioned dolls by coming out with its own, and they're making it a Barbie line extension simply to take advantage of that line's superior brand recognition. It's the Boys From Marketing looking to make another buck, plain and simple -- there's no "PC" motive of any kind. The real pernicious thing about Barbie, no matter how she's shaped, is that she trains little girls that their primary role in life is to be consumers above all else. Buy the doll, buy her accessories, buy her whole manufactured life, wow isn't this fun. The whole concept of the "teenage fashion doll" is a product of the postwar consumer society.

Mattel has a long history of this. Women my age will remember "Skipper," Barbie's little sister, who was added to the line to give an option that would appeal to pre-teen girls. This was followed in my own sister's time by "Growing Up Skipper," who developed breasts when you turned her arm, just like happens in real-life puberty. And there was Francie, Barbie's best friend, who was a brunette -- I always preferred her to Barbie, myself, for obvious reasons -- I even drew glasses on her face. And Christie -- who was "black Barbie" long before Barbie herself was black. These new dolls are really no different.

From the perspective of the corporation, I agree. I've said it before too. Its all about Profit. But there is a dynamic that spreads throughout social media and news outlets about making the Barbies "equal" and "more realistic". Mattel may be doing it to prevent a competitor, thats true. But there is certainly a push from certain groups outside of corporate america to make it so.

Well, I dunno, I think equality and realism are good things. But that's just the 1930s Golden Era pinko in me. Note that the exaggerated giant-breasted wasp-waisted skinny-legged blonde blue-eyed Aryan Barbie is still very much on the market for those who prefer her, so it's not like New Coke taking Real Coke off the shelves or anything.

What I'd really like to have is a fashion doll of Genora Dollinger. Complete with red beret and goon-cracking blackjack action. I'd buy that in a minute.

"You can tell it's Mattel - it's swell!" Just thought I'd throw that in.

How freaky is google and modern tracking.... I JUST now googled Genora Dollinger and look what pops up on the First Page.....

I tried to screen shot it but didnt work, so lets see if this does.



https://www.google.com/search?q=Gen...ved=0ahUKEwj51N-i_NTKAhWGYyYKHaFEAokQ_AUIBigB

Basically, it shows pics of the members of this thread because we were just talking of it....

The Boys have tools at their disposal that we can't even comprehend.

philosophygirl78 said:

As a further example, look at what is happening with the "Barbie". .

Click to expand...

Being childless, Barbie is almost alien to me. Of course I've heard of the doll, but it was only recently that my ignorance was enlightened.
My cousin and I are more like brother and sister than first cousins. She became a grandmother about eight years ago. Just before Christmas I rang my cousin to ask what was an appropriate gift for her grand daughter. "She's into Barbie," I was informed. So, Christmas shopping, into the toy department of a large store. "Good morning Sir, how can I help you," said a smiling assistant. "I'd like a Barbie doll please." "Certainly Sir, which Barbie did you have in mind?" "Which Barbie?" "Yes Sir, there's a variety of Barbie dolls. You can have a teacher Barbie, doctor Barbie, gymnast Barbie..........." "Good grief, how much are they?" "They are all twenty pounds each, except that one at the end, and you will have to pay a hundred pounds for that one." "A hundred! She must be very special, why is there such a huge price disparity?" "Well Sir, that particular one is Divorcee Barbie, and she comes with Ken's house, Ken's car, Ken's pension, Ken's.................."

GHT said:

Being childless, Barbie is almost alien to me. Of course I've heard of the doll, but it was only recently that my ignorance was enlightened.
My cousin and I are more like brother and sister than first cousins. She became a grandmother about eight years ago. Just before Christmas I rang my cousin to ask what was an appropriate gift for her grand daughter. "She's into Barbie," I was informed. So, Christmas shopping, into the toy department of a large store. "Good morning Sir, how can I help you," said a smiling assistant. "I'd like a Barbie doll please." "Certainly Sir, which Barbie did you have in mind?" "Which Barbie?" "Yes Sir, there's a variety of Barbie dolls. You can have a teacher Barbie, doctor Barbie, gymnast Barbie..........." "Good grief, how much are they?" "They are all twenty pounds each, except that one at the end, and you will have to pay a hundred pounds for that one." "A hundred! She must be very special, why is there such a huge price disparity?" "Well Sir, that particular one is Divorcee Barbie, and she comes with Ken's house, Ken's car, Ken's pension, Ken's.................."

Click to expand...

Hah! Ive heard that one before!

LizzieMaine said:

... who developed breasts when you turned her arm, just like happens in real-life puberty.

Click to expand...

Really?! Is that how it's done?
I can see thousands of 13-year old girls twisting each others' arms starting tomorrow.

I'm really selective about what I buy my kids.

I hope to god my daughter or son don't want barbie dolls. My daughter is already into the whole princess thing, which boggles my mind (the only princess I ever cared for as a kid was Snow White, and I wasn't a fan, to say the least).

I have a feeling I'm doomed.

The Disneyfication of childhood fantasy is a very real problem. Kids used to make up their own games, with their own characters, and their own costumes -- but now it has to be a licensed fantasy featuring a licensed character, in a licensed costume.

Disney merchandising goes all the way back to the early thirties, but it really exploded in the wake of the home video era starting in the eighties and took the marketing to a sinister level. First you sell the kids on the movies themselves -- not just once, in the theatres, but incessantly on VHS or DVD until the images are permanently ingrained in the minds of the kids. And then you flood the stores with licensed merchandise based on the characters, and you've got an entire juvenile population that's been mentally and emotionally conditioned to buy that merchandise. It's not just a business plan, it's a *brainwashing* scheme, and it preys on the most vulnerable members of society. If that's not evil, it'll do till evil gets here.

Dr. Susan Linn, a noted child psychologist from Boston, and the founder of the Campaign For A Commercial-Free Childhood, has written and lectured extensively on the real dangers of this kind of marketing. She was a disciple and protege of Fred Rogers, but is quite a bit more militant in her views. Her book "Consuming Kids: The Hostile Takeover of Childhood" is highly recommended.

LizzieMaine said:

Well, I dunno, I think equality and realism are good things. But that's just the 1930s Golden Era pinko in me. Note that the exaggerated giant-breasted wasp-waisted skinny-legged blonde blue-eyed Aryan Barbie is still very much on the market for those who prefer her, so it's not like New Coke taking Real Coke off the shelves or anything.

What I'd really like to have is a fashion doll of Genora Dollinger. Complete with red beret and goon-cracking blackjack action. I'd buy that in a minute.

Click to expand...

Careful now, there are those of us who like exaggerated giant-breasted wasp-waisted skinny-legged blonde blue-eyed Aryan Barbies.

KILO NOVEMBER said:

Really?! Is that how it's done?
I can see thousands of 13-year old girls twisting each others' arms starting tomorrow.

Click to expand...

Hear here!