Life in Plastic

So I opened up Blogger to start writing my blog, but as always, I got distracted. I opened up YouTube to watch some videos, and guess what my advertisement was?

Yeah, it was Barbie. And in case you really desperately have some time to kill, here it is.

Oh, the irony. I was just about to start writing about Barbie, and as soon as my mind wanders off and I procrastinate, here she comes, out of absolutely nowhere. I sat through that entire 2 minutes and 30 seconds of advertisement, because I wondered if Barbies have changed over time. But honestly, wtf. I don't know what the heck I just watched. 

In a nutshell, the video showcased some sort of Play-Doh pizza, made by two Barbies of different race in fast-food restaurant uniforms using plastic tools and plastic hands. I couldn't take it seriously. But the thing that stood out was that at the end of the ad, it said "You Can Be Anything," and in the background there was an upbeat song that started "anything is possible, we're unstoppable." 

So this is what I don't understand. Barbie herself is thin as a stick, with a chest that is "so out of proportion to the rest of her body that if she were a human woman, she'd fall flat on her face" (Prager). But here she is, empowering girls to have freedom, become whoever they want to be, do whatever they want to do. What's the actual message here? Barbie sets a horribly unrealistic standard for girls, but at the same time promotes individualism. Is Barbie really trying to say that to have freedom, a woman must meet these physical expectations? The whole thing is hypocritical, really, and it truly does make sense that Barbie was designed by a man. From what I can see, the only thing that's changed are the different skin colors that Barbies now come in. And of course, that isn't a bad thing. But you'd think that after a while they would realize how impossible Barbie's body is. 

I admit to have played with Barbie before, a long time ago. I have two older sisters, so inevitably Barbie was bound to end up somewhere in our house. I remember thinking that Barbie must have been some sort of alien, because I didn't recall seeing a woman who looked like.. that. So perfectly crafted to fit her clothes, her shoes. Plastic is supposed to me malleable right? But Barbie? Nope. Her body is so stiff, so rigid- she may as well be made of metal.

Blog

In a couple hours, I’ll be on an airplane. Right now, I’m on a bus, writing this blog on my phone. You will probably read this on a computer. After finishing this blog, I’ll probably go on Facebook or watch some Netflix. Point is, technology is now essential in our lives. 

But should we set a limit to the capabilities of technology? Or is the advancement of technology limitless now that we have sparked it? 

Scientific- including technological- discoveries and advancements are definitely, irrefutably, undeniably incredible. They have created new ways of viewing things, unimaginable to those before. 

But, as Marie Curie’s cause of death was due to radiation, breakthroughs have their consequences. In a more relevant context, Mark Zuckerberg has recently been taking fire for this data scandal. Coincidentally, Facebook has been one of the most revolutionary social media outlets to connect people across the world. But apparently, maintaining this system came at the cost of its users. I wont go into the details of Zuckerberg’s downfall, but let’s just say this- he may have been too ambitious. 

Now I’m not a scientist, and I haven’t developed a billion dollar company based on social interaction. However, just as we are certain that the sky is blue, it is certain that discoveries do not come without a cost. But maybe for society to become more advanced, we need people like Mark Zuckerberg and Marie Curie to take these risks and brave the unknown. 

Anyways, the plane is taking off soon. I should probably post this before I lose connection. 

Charging Girl

"Fearless Girl" might have been a good idea. It was a great idea, actually. But who gave Kristen Visbal the authority to completely tarnish Arturo Di Modica's original piece of art?

Before I go on, I'd like to state some things:

1. I am not against feminism and/or gender equality.

Actually, that's about it. Now let me get on with my point.

The concept is really creative. A young girl facing a bull, displaying her courage to fight back against what some people would refer to as  "male dominated corporate boards." And I get that. The message is clear. But as we know, the piece was actually commissioned as an advertising campaign. And this completely undermines the point of "Fearless Girl." 

What triggers me the most is this- when Di Modica tried to defend his piece, people just assumed that he was against women in corporate positions, or gender equality/feminism in general. And on top of that, his "Charging Bull" was created to represent the "strength and power of the American people." Tell me where in that phrase it suggests male favoritism. Nowhere. Di Modica built an incredible work of art to portray a strong message, and that message is completely overridden by "Fearless Girl." Arturo, as well as the bull, has been antagonized wrongfully. And because the sculptor of the bull HAPPENED to be a man, he is considered a man who doesn't "like women taking up space."

When I went to New York, it was before "Fearless Girl" had been erected. And "Charging Bull" by itself was a very popular attraction. But with the installation of "Fearless Girl," Di Modica's original piece of art is simply a character in the scene that Visbal set up. And on top of that, it's the villain. You could say the girl is standing up against the coincidentally male bull. Or maybe the girl is just standing in the way of the bull's true meaning. You tell me.