Your doll isn't buff enough.

The first article discussed the effects of action figures on the male body image, and how there seemed to be a correlation between the increasing size of the toys and muscle dysmorphia. The second article introduced an argument that action toys or Barbie Dolls had no significant effect on body image, and that blaming them was idiotic when actual human beings were just as guilty of creating body image issues.

The first article manages to present a viewpoint without taking the side of its own opinion. The tone of the article was intelligent, with all the necessary words indicating that the author or authors had definitely done their research. The research was enough to engage me in the idea of muscle dysmorphia being caused by the increasing and incredible body image of action figures over many years. I have always been aware of this argument, but the article did a great job with comparing the G.I. Joe and Star Wars action figures over time. Because the article is pure fact without any emotion or pathos, it presents an article with an opinion so unbiased that it cannot be completely disputed. However, the article stumbled in many areas. There was a feeling of redundancy the further I got into the article. At one point, I felt the author had restated the same idea in the same paragraph. For example:

“We hypothesized that action toys would illustrate evolving ideals of male body image in the United States… On both visual inspection and anthropomorphic measurement, it appears that action figures today are consistently much more muscular than their predecessors.”

The idea has been stated many times before, almost to the point where it’s pointless to express it again. Another thing that stood out was that the article made an incorrect statement about Batman.

“Some of these latter figures, such as Batman and The Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, might not be considered completely “human”, in that they possess powers beyond those of a real human being.”

The Mighty Morphin Power Rangers make sense, however, everyone who is aware of Batman and his comics would know that he is as real as any other human. Also, the article made a mistake with Han Solo, one of the most popular characters in the Star Wars saga. The article called Han Solo, Hans Solo; a mistake anyone can point out if they are familiar with the trilogy. While these two things may not seem like huge mistakes, the article might turn off readers of a younger generation who are familiar with these characters. These two characters could really play into pathos, but since the attempt failed, the article failed in providing effective pathos. The article just felt too jumbled with facts, even though they helped to solidify the author’s argument.

The Second article was straightforward. The author clearly stated her opinion and position on the issue, and that it was made the article more effective. The author’s tone was more understandable to a broad audience; it lacked a strong formality and carried a hint of irritation. The article delivered a strong punch by reminding readers that toys have not always been the problem with body image in America. Whether someone in the audience disagrees, the author made several effective arguments without the use of much logos.

“Now, instead of sending a dog-tagged doll that looks like your next door neighbor’s older brother into battle, it’s more like you’ve dispatched a cartoon superhero.”

The author makes a valid point by discussing war and action figures in the same sentence. The thought of a young boy fighting enemies can create a distressing image, but the idea of an indestructible man fighting crime still gives a sense of security to young people, and it probably always will. Either way, the article was directed towards a broader audience, probably one that can identify with toys on a more emotional level and has never been affected by the appearance or marketing of the dolls.

Toys have never had a significant impact in my life. Honestly, I grew bored of my toys after playing with them for a couple of hours; although, my fascination with my Barbie Dolls would be back the very next day. To me, they were nothing more than dolls that I could use to play out the silly stories in my head. I loved to dress them, and I loved to buy them accessories. But they were never more than dolls to me. I also had a couple of action figures, but being a girl, their image never impacted me the way they might have impacted a boy. I was too young and interested in other things to notice that the physique of my dolls were changing. I never noticed that Barbie’s bust was larger than average and that her waist was abnormally small. To me, they were plastic puppets.