An image from the Tree Change Dolls’ tumblr site
Today a friend sent me a link to a new trend that basically caused me to have a rage blackout: dolls that have been “made-under”. Labelled “Tree Change Dolls“, these are generally hyper-feminine styled dolls (such as Bratz) that have been found at op-shops and transformed through changing their hair, shoes, makeup styles and clothing, to look more normal and natural. In the words of their creator, Tree Change Dolls involve “swapping high-maintenance glitz ‘n’ glamour for down-to-earth style”.
But before you all rush off to procure a Tree Change Doll of your own, it’s worth unpacking what it means to “make-under” a doll. Is it more ethical (as the subtext of the Tree Change Dolls website would suggest) to have a doll adorned with the natural beauty look, rather than the hyper-feminine aesthetic more commonly seen? And why is a make-under really any different to a make-over?
Firstly, let’s look at one before and after image from the site and what a make-under involves:
2. Removing signs of obvious makeup
3. Conditioning and relaxing the hair which is worn out rather than having it styled up
4. Starting with a naked doll and finishing with a clothed one
5. Maintaining a clear complexion one the face of the doll free of any abnormal markings
Here we can see that the effect of “stripping back” actually mimics a “putting on” of layers. Quite literally the features of the dolls are transformed to conform to a different standard, that of “down to earth style”. In effect, the dolls are not made-under, they are made-over, with the same dramatisation of before and after we would expect from any other visual representation of stylistic aesthetic change.
Another Tree Change Doll, so liberated
Rather than radically challenging or interrupting expectations of femininity, the Tree Change Dolls set up a new system of signifiers in hyper-femininity’s place: the end result being a set of dolls that all look remarkably similar. The dolls featured on the site all have similar “natural” faces, wear knitted jumpers and 50s-style feminine skirts or alternative-style dungarees, creating an overall effect that looks like the dolls have stepped right off the pages of an alternative women’s magazine (such as Australia’s Frankie), which fetishises the domestic, the home-styled and the “real”. This styling supports a fantasy that one can retreat into a more authentic world of natural beauty, eschewing the limits of oppressive gender norms and escaping the fakery epitomized by the glamour of the pre-made-under dolls.
The pre-made-under dolls have a striking resemblance to drag queens
But, I hear you ask, isn’t a “stripped-back” simple style a less problematic norm than the make-up caked faces of the pre-tree-hugged Bratz dolls and Barbies? Perhaps not. The idea that we might adopt styles of self-presentation as if in a cultural vacuum, supports the circulation of more insidious gender norms. It presents us with the idea that there is a way to look like a “real” girl: and it certainly doesn’t involve wearing visible makeup.
Me playing drag queen at home in my 20s
When I was a child one of my favourite party themes was “make-up”, and on three separate occasions I held parties where my friends were expected to do-over their own and other’s faces – the only thing being that it was about being crazy, drag-queenish and fun. On my eighth birthday I ended up with green sparkly leaves coming out of my nose, purple fangs and giant blue eyes. The point of this story is that make-up can be about repeating expected styles of beauty, but it can also be very fun. While Bratz dolls might present a beauty style that is over-the-top and homogenous across dolls, the Tree Change Dolls also opt for conformity over experimentation.
As I have written previously, Bratz dolls encapsulate a sheer excess of femininity that is an indulgence rather than a necessity to attract a male gaze. Indeed, with the cult of natural beauty comes a sense that you can’t play around with beauty products or clothing if you want to – you’d just be reinforcing an always-already-oppressive style.
Monster High Dolls: similar yes, but experimenting with the limits of acceptable presentation
The reason to be deeply concerned about these Tree Change Dolls is that they represent a broader trend toward securing a fixed sense of what a real girl looks like – rather than disrupting the normal when it comes to gender. In fact it seems that Bratz dolls have evolved in recent years – into the now popular “Monster High Dolls”, which, though shiny and long-haired and “pretty”, adopt quirky, strange, monstrous stylings, transforming previous limits around normal looks. While there could be a lot more diversity of styles of gender presentation in these kinds of toys, the worst thing we could do is try and offer a “stripped-back” look that returns us to some kind of original “natural” point. Sometimes the natural might actually be the most fake of all.
Anyone who is still playing dress up and make overs at 18 years old should not have an opinion .
I’m Glad to see dolls out there that don’t look like whores. Children see this and think this is proper . Runway models ect… do this because the lights wash you out and you look like you don’t have a face and that’s is understandable . But not everyday makeup wear.
Thanks for this. I’m not sure I totally agree but I appreciate your perspective. You’ve challenged my assumptions about these make-unders being a totally positive thing and I agree that diversity is important. I just discovered your blog and look forward to reading more!
I’m reading the comments and I find it interesting that people seem to be missing one of the major points of your argument. If all the Bratz dolls look alike under the makeup and sexualization, the TCD are simply exchanging one “right” way for another in culture norm. Instead, the Monster High dolls are a better representative since they show diversity in both binary and cultural normals.
I presented on research I found at a conference (a paper that I need to write) about the Bratz dolls demographics and the hypersexualization of little and young girls. I understand the need for “make unders” but those should also represent different genders, ethnicities, races, and queerness. There’s more than Donna Reed versus Madonna in the world. Or in today’s comparisons: Miley versus Dakota Fanning.
If the dolls only show one “normal” look, then those who don’t fit in are still underrepresented by unconscious and conscious corporate bias.
I have to agree with you here. Honestly, there is room in the world for Tree Change Dolls and Bratz. They serve different purposes and little girls (AND little boys, ahem) may value them uniquely. To be honest, I suspect the Tree Change dolls will be more popular with moms than kids- kids LIKE the weird and unusual, they like to test boundaries and explore the world around them. In a Tree Change household, a Bratz doll (though tasteless and tacky) is a window into a whole other world, a fantasy object… in other words, a toy, and possibly a more interesting toy than a Tree Change doll.
Most of the kids I’ve known and worked with would very likely have a space in their make believe time for both dolls, and both those dolls would be dressed in all kinds of different clothes (including each others) and play all kinds of different roles, in a little town built out of mud and legos. Kids make room for all kinds- why shouldn’t we?
I like the undermake dolls, they really look like girls.
This is one person who has made a dozen dolls look like really little girls, because she was made redundant & needed something to fill her time. She’s also a mother of a young child, who wants her little girl to have options other than overtly sexualised dolls. She’s not planning to out-market Bratz dolls, although the manufacturing companies should look at how many thousands of women support dolls like this.
When I was a little girl in the 70’s I longed for a Superstar Barbie & when I got her at 10, I loved playing out her going to work & pool parties & mostly I liked making new clothes for her. Real clothes, like jeans & pinafores, because you can’t always wear a bright pink ball gown & tulle boa. The doll I really played with all the time we my Matilda, a doll that looked like a little girl & my baby doll that I could pretend to be a Mummy with.
Well done to this highly creative women, who has taken dolls from the trash & given them a new lease on life.
So I am going to probably sound like an ass and I am ok with that. Oh, and pardon the language, it is not directed at any one person and may be affected by a pounding migraine so pardon me please.
On to the gender neutrality thing… I think TCD’s make it a lot easier for gender neutrality. If the artist did male dolls as well you would be totally set. Now I say make both so a child can CHOOSE. Male dolls may not wear makeup but they do get over done as well and it can be, well, creepy. Seeing male and female dolls in handmade awesome clothes that don’t show off boobs or fake abs is a start. Some of the made up female dolls can get made-under to look more gender neutral, same as some of the male ones. After that… its all about the clothes! Use your imaginations people!
I have seen this pointed out so many times in comments and to those that pointed it out, thank you. The dolls are for kids. Bratz,Monster High and Barbie are 3 of the biggest names for dolls for kids. (I say for kids because little boys should be able to play with them if they want.) They are all way over done makeup and clothing wise. Holy crap on a cracker Batman! Most little girls, nay, kids in this generation have ever even SEEN a natural looking doll that isn’t a soft bodied, floppy thing or a Cabbage Patch doll. Those ones imitate smaller children like toddlers.
But to kind of get back to my point. What is so wrong about “natural”? Why do grown women sit around and bitch about themselves wearing makeup and shiny over blinged crap? I don’t have a problem with it mind you but this topic is about CHILDREN and what is, or should be, considered as a wholesome option. Tree Change Dolls are fucking awesome. I wish I had more choices in natural dolls that weren’t just American Girls (those fuckers are extremely expensive) as a kid. Here I sit at 26 years old and and mother to a son that turns 5 in April. If he wanted a doll, he would get one. But it would not be a doll that looks like she is hanging on the Las Vegas strip.
Any questions for me? I will be happy to answer. I have this set to get emails about new comments. So call me out, debate me or whatever. I would love to hear from you. I really hate when something about kids becomes a big shit storm. We are all grownups here so lets talk about the kids and not ourselves.
This is the stupidest article I have ever read. And yes, I just used the word “stupidest.”
Pingback: Too wonderful not to share: Dolls Repainted into “Real Life” & the Counter Argument against “Normal” Beauty | A Twirly Life
huh? you wasted how many words to say……………… nothing.
Think of the “make-unders” as un-photoshopping. The dolls being re-made were manufactured and aimed squarely at pre-teens; right at a cruxial point in their development of self-image and self-worth. Bratz dolls peddle the same unrealistic ideals as the heavily photoshopped images in magazines and advertising and have thee potential to have a huge impact on a child’s self-worth.
Rather than rail against the stripping back of the layers, why not give some serious thought to how gender-coercive Bratz dolls and their ilk are and the extent to which they reinforce gender stereotypes.
I’m sorry that you – a grown woman – feels personally threatened and disempowered by the removal of paint from a nursery toy. Perhaps you could look into what developmental factors made you feel that way?
Not gonna lie, it is incredibly irritating that the only dolls you can buy really feed into this gender binary and the gender roles imposed by society. I would LOVE to see gender nonconforming dolls available for children. I am glad, however, that these ‘made-under’ dolls exist, because they do provide another option for children who possibly do feel more comfortable with the natural look. I would have, as a kid. I hated barbies and actually preferred a cloth Bart Simpson doll, (obviously not an appearance roll model, but whatever). But I really do agree with the author that makeup should not be some sort of evil thing, it really can be fun and a great means of self expression. There really should be more options for dolls though. Girl’s dolls with masculine aspects or boy’s dolls with feminine aspects, rather than the pervasive and rigid gender rolls that we push on children.
the target audience for the Bratz line is age 4 to 8… even if the characters themselves are supposed to be teenagers how is a 4-8 year old child supposed to relate to the highly sexualized characters? This woman has redesigned the faces, feet and clothing of the dolls to be more suitable to 4-8 year old children. I think she’s done a wonderful job, if I had a child interested in playing with dolls I would most certainly buy the remade dolls… I would NEVER buy the Bratz dolls nor would I allow anyone else to buy them for my children.
Phuleeze. These are how all dolls look about two weeks after kids get them out of the boxes. This is a repainter hobbyist (it’s a huge trend nowadays) who simply isn’t very good at it. Very good at marketing though. Google “OOAK Monster High” (or other popular doll) and you’ll see tons of truly excellent repaints from one end of the costume spectrum to the next.
What a silly, ill-thought-out article by an oddball fake feminist. The Tree Change Dolls are delightful. I can only assume the author of this piece has a large chip on her shoulder and is generally a fool. I mean, okay, so they’re not to your taste as an ADULT but having a “rage blackout” over them – you’re a numpty of the highest order. Get yourself a boyfriend and stop moaning.
You lost me on “get yourself a boyfriend and stop moaning”. I don’t really agree with the article, and I do agree that the author’s “rage blackout” was a bit of an extreme reaction to not liking a thing. However, it is quite possible to voice your position without resorting to name calling, generally, and I’m not even sure where to begin unpacking the “get a boyfriend…” line. Though, I am amused that such a quip would be used within a paragraph calling out someone else as being a fake feminist.
Change “hyperfeminine” to “sexualized.” As a mom, I do not want my daughter playing with dolls that are sexualized. Little girls want to imitate..and I never want my little girl to want to imitate a highly sexualized style.
You are spot on about the dolls. This was a fantastic read with very valid points about how it is just trading one standard of beauty for another. Thank you for writing this.
I think everyone is reading far too much into this. I doubt the owner of Tree Change Dolls is looking to start a whole new trend or anything like it. That being said, I have two little girls, and I don’t allow them to watch Bratz or buy the dolls. I think they glorify a way of life I don’t want my daughters involved in. When they first came out, they were far too “thuggish:; I don’t know what they’re like now, but they’re supposed to be teenagers. I can’t speak for any other women here, but I know as a teen, if I had tried to walk out of my house dressed like those dolls and wearing that much makeup, my mother would have knocked me to Kingdom Come, and I don’t allow my girls to dress that way either, or wear makeup. I think as a teen, you can wear some eyeliner and some lip gloss and be happy with that. If you want to paint yourself up like a clown, then you can do it when you move out of my house and pay your own way in the world. I love the natural look of the Tree Change dolls. I would be happy to see more dealmakers adopt that look. I would like girls to know that they don’t have to plaster makeup on to be pretty, that they are beautiful without it. What a refreshing change!!!
*dollmakers, not dealmakers
I’m not reading all the comments so I’m sure someone has said this better, but that’s never stopped me:
As a parent to a child who was “dolly aged” when Bratz were popular, this is fan freaking tastic. I don’t care about the “artistic integrity” of the project, except insofar as these photos make me feel like I just saw someone rescue a group of 12 year olds from sexual predators and photographed them living happier, normal childhoods. I know they’re dolls, but if the point of art is to move and tell a story…she’s succeeded with me. I hope every mom who lets her kid play with these dolls sees this story and can finally understand how awful it is that they were successfully marketed in the first place.
I can see the changes the post mentions, and that may bug me more if I were an artist. As a mother and a woman though, I love it.
As a queer-friendly feminist who loves her makeup, heels, etc – who also works closely with very young girls, I can appreciate the impulse to be protective of the glam lifestyle, but I also think you need to save your rage blackout for the stuff that’s actually oppressing people.
The doll maker never uses any shaming language on her site. She never accuses the Bratz dolls of looking like sluts or freaks… She’s simply making dolls that look like the little girls they are made for, so that those little girls can see that they are enough. Those girls are BOMBARDED with messages that their natural bodies, not to mention their personalities, are insufficient and that they need to strive for a standard that is literally not natural and requires a surgeon’s knife to attain.
And don’t get me wrong, if a grown woman wants makeup or surgery or spanks or whatever! More power to her. Go for it. But while children are still children, let’s encourage play that isn’t about sex appeal. They will get their share of that in the years to come.
a very balanced view. thank you for putting this out here :)
The original dolls are still available, though. I like the fact that kids can have access to BOTH the made-up “glam” dolls AND the Tree Change sort.
Also: Doll customizers have been repainting faces for YEARS. Some make the dolls look even more fantastically made-up than the original; some give them a more “natural” look, complete with things like freckles. So why is it a problem now? And what’s wrong with taking naked dolls and clothing them, so that kids can have a doll who’s wearing something? This is just another form of customization and renewal of a used doll. Again: doll customizers have been doing this for YEARS. So why is it a problem now that it’s being used for charity instead of for art’s sake?
Some people prefer one look for their dolls; some people prefer another. As I’ve said about TCD on my Facebook, glam is fun, but nobody dresses like that all the time–so why not have dolls with this look too?
Looks like you’re outvoted. And rightly so. The treechange dolls are awesome.
Reblogged this on Cupcake..
I think you’re overthinking it. The point is that ALL of these dolls look like this ALL the time. Combined with their clothes, they really do look like hookers. Maybe they could include a makeup kit with the tree-hugger (I mean, Tree Change) dolls so girls can still apply their own makeup? Either way, I prefer the Tree Change dolls.
I read this response to TreeChange Dolls thinking that this person really has no argument. The upcycled dolls now look like real people, no longer hyper-sexualised. How liberating to finally take the sex out of young girls’ toys. I’m not sure any reasonable person would argue with this.
I echo Janeti’s sentiments. If we are true to ourselves, it’s the idea of stripping away what Bratz’s idea of girlhood is about and return to what is as close as possible to how childhood looks like, that Tree Change Dolls is getting at.
It’s not “Natural Beauty” vs “Artificial Beauty”, but what *normal* little girls look like.
To have a “rage blackout”, I think is an overreaction. For girls to look like girls as a foundation is where we ought to begin, and if our little girls project different fantasies on their dolls – to be astronauts, teachers, IT engineers, business owners – that’s up to them. But to present a doll like Bratz and have our kids build a storyline around them narrows down the story pretty quickly and significantly.
True, at the moment, TCD could be modernised with little iPads, books, bikes, and a more modern t-shirts and jeans get-up, or perhaps more reflective of the different cultures they may be from, but I tend to see those as an issue of the crafting/dressmaking, than the intent of TCD. For me, that facial change is hugely transformative, and a powerful message in itself of what’s worth celebrating about girlhood, regardless of race, language, or culture.
A “rage blackout”? Really?? Because someone repainted dolls? You have some serious issues and are looking for a fight where there is none to be had. As a self-professed feminist, shouldn’t you be glad girls would be given the chance to CHOOSE the sort of style they want and the girl they want to be? Shouldn’t diversity be celebrated? Shouldn’t femininity in all it’s forms and shades be celebrated? “Insidious gender norms”? I hate to break it to you but ‘norms’ exist because a majority have the same taste. This doesn’t mean everyone who likes the ‘norm’ is brainwashed or a robot… they like what they like. Same as you. And that should be allowed and tolerated just as much as someone who colors outside the lines. Don’t try to force people to conform to your preferences while crying about the injustice that your preference isn’t the most popular (i.e. the ‘norm’). You’re sitting there, thinking you’re so superior, passing judgement on others and trying to seem like an intellectual. Instead you look ignorant and foolish.
“New trend” yeah right. One crafty person in Tasmania who buys second hand dolls from tip shops and op shops. This article reads like someone trying to get cheap points by creating controversy where none exists.
“…the now popular ‘Monster High Dolls’, which, though shiny and long-haired and ‘pretty’*, adopt quirky, strange, monstrous stylings, transforming previous limits around normal looks.”
Where’s the fat one and the one in a wheelchair, then?
Looks to me more like cashing in on the fashionable goth/emo market – the ones they didn’t get first time round with the pretty-in-pink approach.
Too cynical..?
Eh, it’s not really that “goth.” Each monster has a different clothing style and theme (instead of ALL being preppy, now there’s a preppy look, a goth look, a “nerd” look, a sporty look, etc.) so that ALL girls can find a character with a similar style and personality to themselves. I agree that the look of the dolls is basically “Barbie in different styles and with monster-y shapes,” but that’s hardly a surprise in a teen fashion doll. They’re not going to change all that drastically from what’s been making them money for decades.
Also, Bratz and Monster High are made by 2 different companies. ;) Monster High is Mattel (like Barbie and American Girl); Bratz is MGA. Not something most people look up, though, so I can understand the common confusion there.
I don’t know. I get what you’re saying and it certainly makes a great sociological essay, however, as a mother of two little girls I adopt a very pragmatic view. I have nothing against make up and won’t mind my girls wearing it when they’re older. BUT I would much prefer them taking the Tree dolls as a makeup and image example than any Bratz or Barbie dolls.
I don’t think the Tree dolls lady is intending to make a statement of the depth you’re reading into it but is simply saying that less can be more. Makeup to enhance a face rather than to hide it. Is that wrong??!!
Pingback: Bratz Dolls With Make-Unders Are Still Sending the Wrong Message - news from Allwebsolutions.net
In my humble opinion, the tree change dolls are all about taking something that is cast aside and making it into something else. It has far more to do with recycling than it does what this blogger is trying to say it does. I made dolls clothes for years, for the American Girl doll sized dolls. And sexy didn’t sell. Not to the kids coming to my table at craft fairs or to their parents who ordered special items. AG dolls are meant to be a mini-me and even children know they are not sexual beings at that age. Now having said that, should my granddaughter want a Bratz or a Monster High doll, sure thing! If she wants to dress up like that at Halloween, go for it! If there is one thing I have learned through my 36 years as a teacher and 32 years as a parent, the one surefired way to make an item hyper-attractive to a child is to ban it… whether it be candy, screen time or grotesque make-up adorned dolls like Bratz!
I would imagine that if you start with a collection of bratz dolls…and undermake then, then OF COURSE they are all going to look strangely similar – sans eye color, skin tone, hair color, of course. Don’t the bratz dolls all have the same face shape? The same would happen if you made under-made a bunch of barbies. The issue may lie not with the ‘under made’ dolls but the molded plastic of the original toys they are made from. After all someone designed those particular dimensions and features into the toy for a reason (‘it sells’ and that ‘makes our compnay money’).
If the dolls are being dressed in hand made clothes it makes some sense to me that they are dressed simply and in skirts. Doll skirts are a ton easier to make than doll pants. Assuming this company isn’t a non profit, then they have a bottom line to consider as well and thus they might choose less time consuming clothing options? Have you asked the company about it?
I actually really liked the original and post pictures shown next to each other. What great reminder that oh. yeah. the Bratz dolls really are that….strange. How fake and empty looking they are next to the under made doll. (but then again, I read “Sarah Plain and Tall” growing up and was convinced that I wanted that kind of beauty – not outer, but that which comes from within. and I am not an overly big fan of make up but for special occasions. SO I certainly have my own biases)
I’m not sure exactly how to react when someone seems equally horrified by the ‘threat’ of an obviously unnatural doll that promotes a false body image AND the opposite of that. I think if you’re feeling oppressed no matter what you find on the toy market, you may need to address the root of your feelings. Good luck to you!
Nothing you have written here makes any sense. Are you saying the Bratz dolls are transgender or something?? Give me a “made-under” doll over one that resembles a blow-up sex doll any day. If you are so “deeply concerned” over natural looking dolls, I think you need to find a new hobby. The new dolls are gorgeous.
Hey, you’re a grown-up, there’re other kinds of dolls for you to play with… What a small child sees first leaves a life-long impression on them.. Intelligence is very feminine, you know.. I see the remade dolls’ facial expressions as smarter, more self assured and independent then the originals.. That’s a lesson I want my daughter to learn – you’re a a human being, strong, graceful, independent.. I started using make up when i was 11 years old and have loved it dearly my whole life… I painted my dolls’ faces they way i liked it (read: crazy excessive make-up) no one forced me into it.. But here i see some adults; sex fantasies imprinted of kid’s toys, pushing the idea of a certain specific kind of attractiveness… it’s important for kids to grow up without thinking that “sex sells” idea being the main priority. Make up is a beautiful hobby, but you don’t have to have your face painted or be sexually suggestive to feel worthy and happy..
I absolutely love the fact that tree change dolls have stood up and is trying to make a change. TBH I always thought bratz were a little creepy to look at and to imagine handing on of those eerie looking dolls for little girls as young as 4.. argh not ideal. Anyways, the point is I can’t wait to see tree change dolls go mainstream in our stores real soon!!
Supply will have a hard time meeting demand, I am guessing.
Pretty weak argument for natural beauty being more artificial than… artificial beauty. Natural beauty might be the “most fake of all”?? What could you have been thinking to justify this stance? Perhaps if we were assessing models in women’s magazines or portraits in a museum, you might have an inch of ground to stand on. Dolls are for children, and the young girl who is giving these dolls “make-unders” has unique spirit and a totally non-controversial approach to what she is doing. No one says make-up isn’t fun, but feminine dolls representing natural and yes, maybe traditional, beauty are on the whole way more appealing to parents and teach little girls significantly better lessons about self-worth!
I think he’s referring to the fact that the TCD all have “perfectly clear skin,” instead of having freckles, acne, scars, rosacea, etc. painted on some of them. He’s clearly never painted a doll before–just the simple paint job being done on the TCD right now takes a fair bit of practice, patience, and lots of wee brushes to make look good. Making “imperfections” look realistic is much, much harder and takes a LOT more time to do no matter how skilled you are at it.
I absolutely LOVE what she’s done with the dolls! But just to make sure I wasn’t putting my own adult bias on this, I called my daughters (aged 4, 6, 8, & 12 – and who have all played with Barbies and Bratz dolls on many occasions) to have a look. I asked them which dolls they’d prefer. It was an unanimous vote for the tree change dolls. I guess that says it all huh! ;)
I absolutely agree with joanne there. This lady is simply giving people options and this is not a bad thing at all. You might like make up and good for you. But not all of us do and I really really doubt that the purpose is be restrictive and oppressive. As if any girl playing with these will never be allowed to play with make up and be creative. Honestly, by only having one available ‘look’ on the market are we not telling girls there is one way to be feminine and one way to be beautiful. There are many ways in which beauty can be expressed and we should applaud someone willing to offer a different idea of feminine beauty to girls.
The point is that dolls such as Bratz are overly sexualised for the young girls they are marketed at. There is no reason at all why adults or teenagers can’t wear and love make up and being feminine. There are plenty of reasons why trying to look like a sexy adult is not fin for children who are around 7 to 12 which is where the Bratz dolls are marketed.
Wow, way to completely over think things. I agree with the previous poster who said “I don’t find anything you have said here particularly relevant.”
I think it’s great that the average little girl, who does not, on a daily basis, wear garish makeup, have a doll that represents her. I, like most little girls, enjoyed playing with makeup, but as I said before, heavy, garish makeup like that the Bratz dolls wear, was not something I would have ever left the house in. Way to fly off the handle about nothing. Let the kids have some variety.
I find this article to be a poor attempt at justifying hypersexualizing girls just because it is the cultural norm. Teaching our daughters that they are valuable without makeup is far more progressive than jumping on the glam is best bandwagon that magazines promote. I would purchase these normal looking dolls over those with whorish makeup anyday. It takes far more courage as a woman to be natural looking than to follow what society expects from women.
give me a fucking break. Bratz dolls are sexualizing and ridiculous and these make unders are awesome.
I was going to post this (see below), but actually I think you expressed my sentiments much better, so let’s go with:
“^What she said!”
——–
“Couldn’t agree more. This article seems to fixate around the non-issue of grown women wearing make-up (or not), completely missing the real issue of our complicity in passing on the damaging female stereotypes our patriarchal society sadly still expects to our daughters to conform to. It’s not about the ‘slap’, it’s about girls’ expectations for themselves. ”
As long as a woman has the independence of mind and spirit to be her own person, I couldn’t care less how much make-up she wears or how she dresses. While little girls are still growing-up and trying to work out this unjust world for themselves, isn’t it incumbent on the rest of us to widen their aspirations, not to (metaphorically) hand them a lippy instead of a pen, and get them a boob job for their 16th birthday?
Reblogged this on Insight Of Teri Butcher and commented:
100%.
The clothes that that dolls are wearing are HAND MADE. Obviously they are going to look more homey and ’50’s. Have you ever hand knit a sexy dress? Probably not.
Frankly, I think that you wrote this just to complain about something. The dolls look sweet and innocent and there is nothing wrong with representing those things to a young child.
You post a picture of yourself playing drag ‘in your 20’s’ YOU WERE IN YOUR 20’S!! You weren’t 10. My parents let me play with make up, but I was NEVER allowed to look like a Bratz doll.
I am not one of those domestic women. I wear mini skirts and makeup almost daily, but I am a grownup. I am disgusted when I see young girls dressed the same way. As a culture we have sexualized young girls. It’s disturbing. These dolls are not sexualized. They are dressed in play clothes and are shown playing outside. Like kids should be.
Yes! All of this!
You are missing the entire point…..dolls are for kids! Why do the dolls who also represent kids need to have 5 lbs of makeup caked on, and dress in tight fitting clothes or short dresses in order to be fun to play with? These overly done dolls teach girls at a very young age that they are to be valued for their looks. I think the monster high dolls send a good message about not following “norms” or trends, but they could tame down the makeup as well and wear more kid friendly outfits. Toys do not need to be sexualized, they are for kids!
Some of the monsters do have a less-made-up look, but I agree that there aren’t a lot of them.
And it is a bit annoying that Mattel only makes dolls with short skirts nowadays–but longer skirts (and even pants!) are, thankfully, super-easy to make. Frankly, the thing about MH that makes them less “kid-friendly” is the sheer number of joints and tiny pieces! Great for kids around 8-9+. Horrible for younger children who are going to end up breaking knee joints, losing all the jewelry, etc. (There are some really sad-looking used dolls on Ebay all the time, and most of the ones with actual broken places are Monster High dolls. Some collectors buy the badly-broken ones on purpose–either for extra pieces, or to do a dramatic “makeover” to make the doll lovely again.)
As for teenaged doll characters: they experiment with makeup, and often wear a lot more than an adult would. But there’s no excuse for dolls that represent young children to have painted-on eyeshadow! That’s why this is my favorite TCD so far:
Lets face it, these dolls are called BRATZ. Do I want my daughter to become a BRATZ? Absolutely not. We will purchase the version more suitable for a 4 year old, thank you for the link. I absolutely LOVE what she’s done to those ugly ugly dolls. Its one thing to let a child have their own creativity and imagination as to what they can look like and its another thing to push an over-made up, under dressed, sexualized doll into their play zone. I’d rather have a doll come with make up and hair color so she can do what she wants herself… I guarantee it would look better than that Bratz doll.
Interesting questions raised for those of us interested in academic approaches to culture/feminism. However, as a mom, I’d much prefer to have my child (incidentally, mine are male, but this goes for any young child, regardless of sex) playing with dolls that are not hyper-sexed, rather than thinking the baseline for “femininity” is uber-sexual, made up, stripper-glam. Experimentation and boundary-pushing with appearance will certainly come in time.
“the worst thing we could do is try and offer a “stripped-back” look that returns us to some kind of original “natural” point.”
Really? That’s the worst thing?
I might be in the minority here, but my brand of feminism is to MMOB. Women are perfectly capable of making choices that suit themselves and I’m not going to sit back and wave my finger at them. If this artist doesn’t like the make-up look and prefers something else, who cares?
I wouldn’t tell someone to put on makeup any more than I would tell someone to take it off. Not a man, not a woman, no one, just I wouldn’t tell someone with curly hair to straighten it and I wouldn’t tell someone to “show some skin” or “cover up, skank.”
All of this snarking about what is good or bad… jeez, just relax. Not everyone has the same aesthetic preferences, either for their own look or what they prefer to look at. I also fail to understand why the choice of one or another has any moral weight like “good” or “bad”.
If feminism is (at least partly) about free choice and expression, then be happy for more of it.
Eh, if you want the obnoxious Bratz dolls, go for it, but I’ll take my dolls de-skank-ified, thanks.
You missed it entirely. This isn’t about toys for adults, or even teens. These are dolls that were marketed to little girls – LITTLE girls, meaning 4-8 years old, at the oldest. They didn’t look “hyper-feminine;” they looked utterly fake. NO one has eyes that big. NO one has lips that big. NO one. The message isn’t “fixing your hair & makeup & clothes up to look glam is bad;” it’s “little girls shouldn’t feel pressured to look like vaguely humanoid cartoons, and let’s support an active outdoor lifestyle while we’re at it.”
Good points. It’s important not to oppress with ANY version of “femininity”. What I think makes these dolls relevant is the choice they offer. As artistic expression, they are just as stylized as the original version, true, but given that retailers aren’t offering their particular style (to the extent they market/stock the other), having the option to choose a more “natural” looking doll is important. And what about the kids who don’t go for one extreme or the other? Where are their choices? We’ve been telling young girls since Barbie’s debut that they have to let their beauty and appearance be dictated by what’s currently available and/or popular on the market. What making under (or over, or just different) dolls shows them is that they aren’t necessarily held to that manufactured standard. Just the process of changing the doll is a necessary conversation. Ultimately, I think the lesson to be taken from Tree Change Dolls is that if you don’t like what you’re presented with by the market – make your own. I’d love to see what the next generation does with that.
I don’t find anything yoi have said here particularly relevant. The dolls are just fine. there are other dolls on the market with different looks. The more different dolls available the better.
Spot on Joanne. Nothing that has been said in this blog is particularly relevant, and I see no validation for the “rage blackout” that she experienced on reading about these dolls. The point is, that this mum who performs the ‘make-unders’ obviously doesn’t want her kids playing with a doll who wears excessive makeup/adult fashion. Probably, there are other parents who think the same way, so she’s simply filling a void in the market. Sometimes the natural might just be… the natural
Given that most dolls are played with by girls under 10 I think a makeup-free doll is a lot more approachable.
If you are the type of mother that wears heavy makeup then presumably you will enjoy the Bratz doll look and let your kids play with them. Whereas if you are the type of mother who thinks heavy makeup on a person makes them look slutty and whorish, you will probably not let your girls play with the full make up version, for fear of encouraging that look in your impressionable daughter’s mind. And you will probably love the version that this artist has re-created.
BTW You lost me at “oppressive gender norms “.
Thanks, Rose. My granddaughters will receive the Tree Change dolls from me when the Etsy shop opens for such. I like the idea of them have natural friends to play with. Good for them to have a variety and make their own choices.
I was thinking about this, exactly, when seeing that tumblr and thanks a lot for putting it all here so eloquently. I mean, yeah, natural beauty is great, we are all beautiful as we are, blahblah, but hello? Can’t I love make-up? Can’t I do crazy shit with my face? Should I look like a good, natural housewife, all feminine, gentle, subtle and soft? HELL NO, if I don’t want to ;)
Actually, I mostly wear quite a little make-up, but for me as a woman, wearing it is fun and I wear it for myself rather than for any men. When I was small, I used to paint my face like a crazy geisha (as a play theme) and that also had nothing to do with ‘geishas in Japanese society’, I just really enjoyed exploring the aesthetics of this look just because. :)
On the other hand, one my friend’s Catholic husband ‘prefers her without make-up’ and another (also Catholic) friend’s Catholic husband even tells her ‘not to wear dangly earrings because it’s too sexy’. No make-up is given. If these kind of natural look rules are not oppression from males, then I don’t know what is…
It’s not about you ladies.. It is about the 5-10 year olds who play with the dolls and get the impression that that’s how they should look like when they grow up. Make-under means anything that brings our looks closer to what they really are underneath all make-up and plastic surgery. As the author said it herself – the after version is stripped down from unrealistically big eyes lips and make-up is removed It’s all about setting unrealistic standards for the little girls.
It is great to question everything and challenge perceptions and “norms” but there are some things out there that simply are better than others and sorry to say this but you really have no ground for this article and you even contradict yourself at times..
By the way these dolls remind me of those beauty pageant shows with little girls, which to me are the sickest thing ever.
P.S. I love make-up and I wear it almost every day.
Thank you!
I agree with Janeti, I was going to write the same thing but she already said it! Well done.
Yes!
YES!
This! Thank you. The issue is that most little girls don’t have the life experience and ability to see how skewed things are and know the difference. There’s nothing wrong with liking makeup and glitz and glam, but to understand the context in which that is appropriate, and what exactly you as a person are expressing by doing so, and *understanding* how it can be perceived in society is beyond their capacity.
Thank you…. and as the one to purchase the toys…. I won’t buy a brats doll, but would buy a ‘made under’ doll… just saying!
I 100% agree with Janeti. These dolls are not about the adult woman they are for young girls who are still developing their own self worth and self confidence. Studies have shown that by the time a girl turns 11 she has already developed her sense of self. A young girl needs to develop her love for her natural self before exploring the world of adding on. I personally wear make-up, love dressing up, wearing heels, and I see nothing wrong with that. I would say I am fairly natural even in my style and make-up but I still love wearing make-up to work and looking good.
When I was a girl I loved watching my mom put on make-up and do her hair. Every so often she would let me wear her make-up and yes, I felt a different kind of pretty that again, I don’t think was bad.
In regards to the comments about clothes. Let’s keep in mind that likely the creator of these dolls identifies with this styling of clothing. Likely, she doesn’t think that dressing up in punk, gothic, altra-fem, etc are bad but she is creating something that is close to her heart. She is not trying to suppress women by dressing dolls in crocheted sweaters, overall jeans (look at the site), rompers, and yes a fifties style dress. She is dressing these dolls in clothes that can be wore outside.
Let’s not be so quick to judge other’s intentions just because they are different than yours. I think as women we can all agree that in a world that is so closely tied to outer beauty yet we all know that it is really about our inner beauty it would be nice to have dolls for the future generation that look a little bit more like us. We are business women, farmers, teachers, stay at home mom’s, coffee baristas, tellers, and CEO’s. We are powerful not because we are beautiful but because of who we are. Outer beauty is not bad but I believe that if young boys and girls can develop their self worth early on not as clouded by outer beauty we may be able to build a society less concerned about what we look like and more concerned with caring for each other and our world.
I don’t see the moralizing on the TCD site that I’m getting here. What I’m seeing is, “dolls in stores are almost exclusively ‘glammed up,’ so I’m making a less-glam alternative available for kids to choose.” It’s not about shaming MGA for making Bratz or Mattel for making Monster High. It’s about giving kids a greater variety of choices. That dramatically-altered Bratz doll doesn’t mean there won’t still be Bratz. Indeed, some of my custom dolls are MORE made-up-looking, and some are LESS.
Plus, no kid wants their doll to come from the store–even the thrift store–naked. She’s giving them clothes that are quick and easy to make, so that she can clothe more naked dolls faster. No kid wants their “new” doll to already look frizzy. She’s conditioning their hair to make it easy to brush again. She’s not doing fancy updos because those take more time, and because kids WILL take them down and re-style the dolls’ hair over and over anyway. She’s not giving them freckles, because they’re hard to do convincingly. She’s not adding blush or scars, because those take time. It’s one person remaking lots of dolls–she’s going to cut a few corners.
Reblogged this on myyogilife adailydiary.
Reblogged this on Tiffany's Non-Blog and commented:
Wow interesting thoughts about gender and dolls. Enjoy!