When I Grow Up...

1. The first article takes us through a study performed by the writers that is meant to give us some idea of the relationship between male action figures and society’s views on the ideal body. The authors believed that action figures would evolve with regards to body type as humans changed their perspective on what men should look like. After determining what toys such as GI Joe, Hans Solo, and Luke Skywalker would look like to scale with an average height male, they found that their bodies would be much more muscular than what we consider to be normal or preferable. This appears to support their hypothesis, though they mention a few things that readers should consider when interpreting the results: many action figures were not included due to their strict requirements of the study, the developing media trends are not necessarily proven, and it is unclear whether the toys are the cause or the effect of these trends, or if they are related at all.

Folstad’s editorial takes a critical stance towards the belief that action figures have any impact on body image. She expresses frustration at the fact that people have gone from attacking Barbie’s unrealistic figure to claiming that GI Joe promotes the same kind of unattainable body image for males. She believes that these are just toys, that we all stopped playing with them at a young age, and that boys and young men have desired a GI Joe-like figure for many years. She concludes by remarking that the whole situation has been “blown out of proportion.”

2. The first article has a much more informative and objective tone that the second. It is written much like a lab report explaining the step by step process that they used to come to their conclusion. It is very fair minded and aware of the possible flaws of the study, prefacing one section with “These findings, however, must be interpreted cautiously for several reasons.” Clearly, they do not want to simply make every reader believe as they do and are honest about their results. This can be targeted at anyone who is interested in learning more about the possibility of a relationship between body image and action figures as it allows for readers to form their own opinion based on this study.

The second article is, obviously, written like an editorial. Folstad has a firm point of view on the topic and comes across as very frustrated and dismissive of anyone with an opposing point of view. With such comments as “Will this ever stop?”, “Here we go again”, and “To suggest that even little boys measure manliness by taking a ruler to the G.I. Joes is comical” she makes clear that her mind is made up on this subject, and she is appealing to people who feel the same way and would like to reinforce their beliefs that the comparison she is addressing is ludicrous.

3. While the editorial was a little more enjoyable to read, I thought the first one was the better article overall, mainly because it relied on facts and evidence from a well conducted study. Folstad really did not have much to say to back up her claims and seemed to rely more on the hope that if she said “This is ridiculous” enough times, that people would start to agree with her. I don’t recall what my favorite childhood toy was, and I don’t believe I was ever denied anything because it was “too violent” or “masculine.” I do not think that toys like Barbie, G.I. Joe, or Luke Skywalker should not be sold because of the body image they may promote, but do I think it could have an influence on children? Certainly. Young kids are likely to consider those characters as heroic or inspirational and will therefore aspire to be like them. Granted, they are not likely to feel the same way as they get older, but these action figures to plant the idea that that kind of appearance is the ideal one, no matter how unrealistic it is.