The psychology of dolls

I was told that in my absence on Monday the subject of the psychology of dolls came up. Well, I'm not quiet sure what the question was, but I can give some psychological insight on dolls.

Girls are to dolls what boys are to guns. A lot of young boys go through a "gun phase" when they are younger (sadly some never grow out of it). It is a pretty big psychological debate whether or not to let young boys have fake toys guns or to take them away. On the female side, young girls are attracted to dolls because they offer them the ability to show nurturance. The idea that females have an innate need to care for others makes sense from an evolutionary point of view. Being nurturing is a trait that women have needed to possess. It was the wife who stayed home and raised her children and the husband who "brought home the bacon," so to say. This is still widely prevalent today. This is something that has been a part of human culture since the cave. It also explains the gun phase in boys, while it is no longer necessary for men to hunt and cavemen didn't have the technology, hunting still went on for quite a while in human history.

Dolls can also have a negative light to them. Barbie, is supposed to be this perfect women that girls want to be just like when they are older. Yet, studies have shown that barbie is linked to eating disorders in some women. A doll symbolizes not only nurturance, but beauty as well. I'd say that infant/baby dolls symbolize nurturance. Yet, barbie and other "teen" or "women" dolls act as a form of manifestation. Some girls pretend that they are these dolls and that they look just as beautiful as the unperceivably disproportional Barbie. Yet, dolls are not the only thing that shape our thoughts on what beauty is. Disney movies also have a huge impact. Belle, Cinderella, Snow white, Sleeping beauty, etc. they all look the same essentially. High cheek bones, clear completions, slim athletic bodies, small pert noses, big eyes, and full lips! (I'll stop there.) Society plays a huge role on this idea, the media and Barbie are just some factors, yet, every day life is the biggest factor of them all.

The fact that taking care of dolls and nurturing others is an innate trait in women and letting them have stuffed animals or dolls is not going to have a huge impact on how they treat animals. I think of it in terms of: If they are a nurturing person they will be nurturing to dolls, stuffed animals and pets.

Question: How does society shape the way we treat animals? How could society better improve this? How does society shape the way we treat eachother?

Response to Mary

Mary asked, "If people were to stop keeping pets, what would the effect of society be as well as the animal world?"
Something that I do not think that we have touched on yet, are the health benefits of owning animals. People who own dogs and cats are less likely to have: heart problems, depression, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, high triglyceride, stress, among many other benifits.
So naturally, if people stopped owning pets the rates of these disorders would rise
For the animal world, the effects to fish, snakes and cats would not change at all. Yet, for dogs, it would change immensely. Like we have been discussing in class, and like Mary discussed in her post, dogs have been domesticated so much that they would not be able to survive on their own. We change them to have shorter legs, longer torsos, rounder snouts. We desire these traits because they are more aesthetically pleasing to us, or these traits are quite possibly desired because they are more human (a manipulated selection that is a borderline satire of The Island of Dr. Moreau). Our extreme breeding choices for these animals has given dog owners the opportunity to turn something that is suppose to be a nurturing act into a real life Cosmo quiz: What dog are you.
Dogs need us for their survival, and if all the dogs were dispersed in the woods, I'm sure some of them would survive. (probably not shitus or chuwuwas). Never the less, both the human world and dog would would have significant changes, because they are so intertwined.

Question: Because animals give us so many health benifits does that give us a reason to breed dogs so that there is at a right dog for everyone's lifestlye? That is to say, different dogs are specifically designed for a certain lifestyle.

People who look like their dogs

Today in class Nick brought up the theory of developmental attraction. Another theory, that realates to this topic is the reward-theory of attraction. We are attracted to the things that reward us. These aren't tangible rewards, but internal rewards. For example, we are attracted to people that agree with us beacuse it reinforces our opinions.
This relates to pet ownership (dog owner ship in particular) because the reward-theory of attraction effects the dogs we choose to own. It has been proven empiclly that people look like their dogs. This is because we are attracted to what we look like, even unconsiously because it rewards us. In one study researchers gathered 70 people to match pictures of dogs to owners. The participants were given 41 pictures of real-life owners and for each they were given a choice of three different dog breeds to choose from. Chance indicates that they would be right 33% of the time, but the results showed that the participants were correct from 50-60% of the time. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5094835/Dog-owners-do-look-like-their-pets-say-psychologists.htmlsts.html).
The researchers also looked for personality similarities, yet found no such correlation.
Yet, People choose their dog breeds for all types of reasons. I do not think that I look like my dog at all. Personally, I like bigger dogs: golden retrivers, labs, and border collies (I own a yellow lab). I like them the most because they appeal the most to me asethtically and personallity wise. These types of dogs are smart, energenic and just want to be loved.

1. If you own a dog what made you choose that breed?
2.Do you think that you look like your dog?

Animal pedagody

On Friday, we brought up the new topic of zoos, and discussed how zoos serve a pedagogical function. Sarah mentioned, that we don't really need to learn about wild animals and that we should just leave them alone. Do we need to learn from animals? Do we have the right to take them out of the wild?
Having a pet teaches you how to care for another being, and it also teaches responsibilities. We use various animals for researching which is a necessary tool for new treatments and medications. Zoos give a real life look at, for what a lot of people, will be the closest they ever come to seeing a real-life exotic animal. Animals are a huge part of our world and teach us so much, we do need to learn about them. In some aspects, humans think they own every animal (and thing). I do not think that this is intentional, but our thirst for knowledge blinds us.

Question: Yet, do we have the right to cage animals for our viewing? Where is the line between curiosity and taking away rights?

Re: Becca Lindamood's Hunting v. Stop and Shop

At the end of Becca's latest post she asked what the world would be like if everyone was required to kill their own meat?

Well, first my response was that the rate would go down dramatically. Yet, then I thought, let's think realistically here. In order to answer this correctly I first have to imply that this is regulated by law -- purchasing meat from industries or small farms is illegal. In that case, I think it would not change at all. People would buy meat from the black market or from small farms anyways.
If, just for hypothetical reasons, we didn't live in a society where people do things even though they are illegal, the rate of meat consumption would go down. This is due to the fact that some people cannot afford weapons and also due to the fact that some people would feel wrong killing an animal. Although, I do think the crime rate may increase because more people would own weapons and would have to know how to use them. When asked a "what if " question it is difficult to say what would truly happen or how the population will react. And as we know from the Prohibition act in the 1920's if people want something that is illegal they will find a way to get it. In the case of hunting, people will get what they want even if that requires someone else to do their dirty work for them.
From an environmental standpoint, there would be an abundance of extra farm animals. I would say that farmers would have to keep their animals and not breed them. If they let them out into the wilderness it would throw off the entire food chain. The amount of foxes, coyotes, wolfs and other natural predators would increase. This would make other things go off course. A realistic chain reaction.

People's schedules are so busy, with working and raising children. Most people do not have time to go out on an all day excursion killing a buck. If it became illegal, this law will be short lived because of this. Do you have time to do this? I surly don't.

Question: what do you think the effects of a vegetarian world would be if we gradually worked towards it? Is it possible?

re: Isa 10/29/10

This is a response to Isa's question," Do you think that our nature as humans has grown into something that may be uncontrollable if not regulated?"

In Isa's post and comment in class yesterday, she talked about the status of owning diamonds and pearls is like the status of owning a buck head on your wall. The words "power, money, and status" all come to mind when talking about trophy hunting (a whole new meaning to 'PMS'). When it comes to killing animals and mounting them on the wall or making rugs out of them that is power. I killed this animal and I am going to show it off. I wouldn't call this status, because the person is showing pride in the fact that they dominate the animal they killed. Wearing a fur coat, or a mink boa is a symbol of having money just like owning diamonds and pearls. Your status is determined by how much money and power you have. I think that it is in our nature to want to obtain the highest status possible.
It's not our nature as individual humans but our nature as a society that has made us believe in this appeal to vanity. Since owning a fur coat and the like are not things that everyone can afford, the amount you own does not need to be regulated. The amount of deers that are hunted, or any other animal that is, needs to be regulated because the population will be at risk for the hunted species.
There is an up side to a small amount of hunting though. When deers are over populated there are a lot of car accidents where they die and cars get completely totaled. I've heard several first hand account stories from friends and relatives. When a deer dies from a car accident, I'm pretty sure that in this country, it doesn't get eaten. I'm not saying that we might as well hunt them because they a going to die anyways from cars, I'm just pointing out that there are less car accidents when the population is under control.

Questions: What are other countries traditions for road kill? How does this compare with America's? What should change about our system or other countries?

Vegatarian V. Ego Defense Mechanism

On Friday Alex spoke about a billboard supporting meat eating and then asked why people were so threatened by vegetarianism. I replied by saying, "People come up with those ignorant sayings because they feel the need to rudely over justify their meat eating so that they can protect their egos." In further inspection of the topic, I found that this situation, does in fact, resembles a certain type of ego defense mechanism. In psychology courses they only teach you the ten Freudian ego defense mechanisms, yet there are others. I won't go into detail about all of the others but I will mention that they are typically divided into three categories: primitive; less primitive, more mature; and mature defense mechanisms.
Among the primitive defense mechanisms is "acting out." The man and the billboard would fall underneath this category. Acting out is preforming an action (puting up a meat eating billboard) instead of feeling the related emotion. People who are defensive have a hard time facing their shortcomings. Instead of excepting other's opinions they fight fire with fire.
Some individuals, feel threatened by vegetarianism because they are at risk for feeling guilty for something that they have been taught is okay their whole lives. An individual does not want to admit that they are a bad person for advocating the death and torture of another being for their own earthly use. In order to refrain from such feelings, they go to the extreme with excuses such as: "That's why God put them here," "PETA is just exaggerating, the animals don't really go through all that suffering," and, "Everybody else eats meat, so it's okay." By instantly dismissing the ethical aspects of meat-eating with excuses, the feelings of guilt are not felt.

Question: Is there a psychological aspect to eating meat and testing on animals? Perhaps cynical?