The Instigator
Bunny2015
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
MisterMittens
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Does monster high send a good message in representation and diversity to girls or boys?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/5/2015 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,373 times Debate No: 78410
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Bunny2015

Pro

Monster High is the only toy line that has openly crossed its boarders and addressed the acceptance of a multitude of diverse racial backgrounds openingly and willingly while also making it's point in how diffrent people can cosexist and addressing certain minor to somewhat controversial issues. Such as an interracial couple, a handicap character being unable to do anything, and the acceptance of each others mistakes. Doing this through a wise campaign of using monsters to represent it all.
MisterMittens

Con

OK well.
The question is: does the Web series and franchise of Monster High send a good message in representation and diversity to girls and boys?
Since I am the contender, my position on the issue is obviously, No.
So let's discuss why not.

Representation by Age
First, Monster High features and exclusively follows a bunch of teens in a High-school ish environment. What's wrong with this picture?
According to the US Census Bureau, teens make up 13.5% of the population in the US.
To be more precise, those from age 10-14 make up about 20.6 million which is about 6.6% of the total population, and those from 15-19 make up about 21.2 million which is about 6.9% of the total population.
Needless to say, the majority of the US consists of people who are not teens. Yet the show's representation is severely lacking of the other 86.5% of the age population.

Representation by Gender
Second. Monster High exclusively centers around a group of female 'teens'.
Behold!!
http://www.licensing.biz...
(Click the link because the picture is too massive for debate.org to display in decent scale)
4 guys.. versus 14 girls.

The ratio of notable male characters to female characters is shockingly weighted in favor of female representation.
If this were truly adequate representation, there would be an equal number of male to female for a balanced ratio.

Representation by Figure
Going back to the picture I just posted.
Notice how all the girls are thin and model-like with red lips, long hair, tiny midriffs and skinny legs.
This is not representative of the actual average of what people look like, and sets certain unrealistic standard as to how people should look.
It's ok to not be skinny. It's ok to not have smooth skin or plump red lips. It's ok not to have skinny legs. It's unfair to expect such and the overwhelming representation of people in Monster High with such stereotyped physique shows its failure to account for physical diversity.

End Result
Monster High fails to represent diversity of age.
Monster High fails to represent diversity of gender.
Monster High fails to represent diversity of figure.

With a failure in both representation and diversity in many areas, Monster High does not send a good message of either value.
Debate Round No. 1
Bunny2015

Pro



First, your argument on the "representation by age" thing is completely invalid.
The population of the group of what the dolls are marketed off too shouldn't even matter.
Thats like saying a group of toys marketed towards african americans is not a good representation of them since they
are the minority group. What does that have to do with anything? Even worse so considering the fact that the dolls are marketed
off towards young pre-teen girls, either in middle school or high school.

Second, I stated in the question, girls or boys for those boys who collect or play with monster high dolls. But that aside,
the toy line is mainly marketed towards girls so it only makes since that majority of the dolls are going to be female.
As seen with nearly every other female targeted toy line (like barbie or bratz). As well as male targeted toy line unless the company,
which is very few, actually care about the gender gap in there toys. If I was going to make a toy line aimed towards "big girls"
than majority of my dolls are going to consist of "big girls."

As for your third argument, it is the only thing I can agree on.
Its true that all of them are pretty much built the same in the main doll line and main characters in both the show and toy line.
However, what about the diversity? Monster high has dolls of various backgrounds, ethics and cultures that happily embrace
them and its clear to see that obvious intentions of their background design.
Such as the charcater Clawdeen and her family representing a black family and Honey Swamp
representing a black southern girl or skelita representing a mexican woman.
The monster exchange series takes this a step further by introducing characters of
scandanavian and south american descent while not coming off as horribly stereotypical.

(The monster puns still suck though. I cringe everytime and sorry for the weird font. I didn't mean to make it like this.)
MisterMittens

Con

Thank you esteemed opponent!!

The Debate so far
The case ran by Miss Bunny relies on the singular contention that the people of different backgrounds in Monster High make it a good message in representation and diversity.
Mine on the other hand show very clear failures in several cases of representation and diversity.
So who takes precedence? My case? Or Bunny's case?

Well.
A summary of Bunny's refutation to my case is marketing.
She says that lack of representation in certain areas don't count because the marketing targets are teens, children and girls in general.
I say that the identity of the marketing targets is no objection.
Just because something is made for teen girls, doesn't mean that it should lack proper representation or diversity.
The marketing targets' identities are irrelevant to whether or not the marketing scheme sends a good message of representation and diversity.
So basically, the failure to represent the diversities of both gender and age is very much significant in whether or not such representation is good.
Gender and age are very much within the purview of good versus bad representation, regardless of target audience.
Again, 86% of the unrepresented portion of society is huge. This is in the failed representation of age diversity alone.
Bunny concedes my third point, and weighs it against what the show does have.
But.
Regardless of what the show does have, what it doesn't have severely outweighs that.


Summary
The end result still stands.
Monster High fails to represent diversity of age.
Monster High fails to represent diversity of gender.
Monster High fails to represent diversity of figure.

Final Thoughts
Your text. Such tiny. Very hard to read. My poor eyes.. you sadist! D:
Just kidding. But seriously. I have a hard time reading small font. It makes me go all squinty.
Oh well.
I make do.
Anywayyyyyyyy...........
Debate Round No. 2
Bunny2015

Pro

What the show does have, actually outweighs what it doesn't. Your argument is the age and gender. The show has racial diversity, diffrent ethnic backgrounds, and acceptance of the diffrent flaws that each character has. That largely out weighs weather or not there is a few adults or males walking around.........

First, your continue argument of the underepresened 86% of people who are not teens should be ignored. The fact that Monster High is indeed directed to teen or young girls or better yet children should be inculded and thought about . You clearly stated that teens, but for sake of space, children ages 10 -19 make up a little over 13% of the population indicating adults make up the rest. Unless their adult toy collectors, I highly doubt that adults are even going to go out and buy a monster high doll or toy. If every toy line was to go te route of not serving a good representation of age or gender every single one would fail. So once again the marketing is going to specifically target young girls as the majority. Once again, this is a toy brand. Their not thinking about adults. Their going to represent the little minority gorup their aiming at. Also, the question is "Is monster high send a good message of representation and diversity to girls or boys?" not grown people. What i meant by the representaion of monster high dolls is by do they represent girls or boys who play with them well? Boys for those who.....CRAP.

*flips laptop* (;ಠ益ಠ)|

HOLY NUGGETS...I DONE GOOFED

I have just realized it but I worded my question wrong. Allowing it to be open to your argument of representation by age and gender while I had in mind racial diversity as seen in my first argument. While I was typing it I meant to say "Does Monster High send a good message of racial diversity and representation to girls?" Its unfair to include boys considering the toy line is targeted towards girls. By putting boys I didn't want to leave out those boys who did play with monster high. I just wanted to be mindful. I lost this argument but felt that I won in the diversity segment and I still stand over what it does has outweighs the whole age and gender thing. You won in the representation of age and gender reagardless though but I still think the marketing audience should still be taken in account. At least somewhat. I hope you do not take this as me trying to change the debate in my favor. I really wasn't trying to be so "general" of the debate question. I'm really specifc of it for a reason. I will probably re-open the deabte again but I'm not sure since you'll probably be my opponent and you agree with the diversity thing. If I do re-open I would like that some one else be my opponent.

On a side note, I left what I first wrote as a means to allow you to see but it started to look unprofessional and thats when I caught myself. Thank You for allowing me to waste your time! I do apologize!
MisterMittens

Con

Preamble
It appears the resolution has been written in such a way that it contains the potential to be and actually has been interpreted in ways that does not sit well with her.
My esteemed opponent! I understand. You have my condolences!!!
As for what should go on from here.
Well.
The lack of diversity in physique and gender and its significance to the resolution have been conceded oh so graciously (at the cost of an unfortunate table - may it rest in peace)
All that's left is for me to defend the lack of representation in age, which I believe is still fully relevant.

Counter!!
Now lhow should I go about doing that
Hm.
Well first off, social interaction in the real world isn't limited to only just young people. Monster High creates and displays an environment of limited social scope which is not very representative of reality. Such limitation gives girls and boys an unrealistic expectation of youth in their peers.
If Monster High were to truly be representative of diversity, then it should show its audience consistent interaction between people of all age groups. Even if the target audiences are girls and teens, these girls and teens should be exposed to age diversity. It is presumptuous of the producers of such media to expect that girls and teens will only be attracted to material that only represents girls and teens.
That's like saying a film targeted to white people should only have white characters or that a film targeted to black people should only have black characters.
That's bullocks!! Bullocks I say!!
In the name of diversity! In the name of fair and proportional representation! In the name of all that is JUST!
I denounce Monster High a failed media of representation and diversity!!

Side note
A quick (ctr+f) search shows the word 'diversity' to have been used 27 times and the word 'representation' 28 times. That's a lot, and most of them were from me. I tend to get repetitive. Hope yall readers don't really mind.

Platitudes and Suggestions
I believe the meat of this debate nears an end! Ms. Bunny! I apologize that you did not get the debate that you wanted!
There's a lesson to be learned here. While it is almost undeniably true that Monster High has a good representation of diversity in race, truisms don't make for good debates. Debates which have true resolutions generally go in directions outside of the direct contention of its truisms. Ergo this deviation.

As a fellow debater, I suggest your future resolutions be debatable for both sides. That is, if you cannot come up with decent arguments for your opponent's side of the debate, then the resolution doesn't make for a good debate topic.

Final thoughts
I hope your table is ok.
Debate Round No. 3
Bunny2015

Pro

Well first off, social interaction in the real world isn't limited to only just young people. Monster High creates and displays an environment of limited social scope which is not very representative of reality. Such limitation gives girls and boys an unrealistic expectation of youth in their peers.

Yes. Social interacton in the real world isn't just limited to young people but the spotlight in the series is on them. The girls. They are going to focus more on them. Most girls anyway spend majority of their time around the same sex. But that aside I still don't see how such a thing gives them an unrealistic expectation of youth. Unrealistic expectation of what?

If Monster High were to truly be representative of diversity, then it should show its audience consistent interaction between people of all age groups. Even if the target audiences are girls and teens, these girls and teens should be exposed to age diversity. It is presumptuous of the producers of such media to expect that girls and teens will only be attracted to material that only represents girls and teens.

This is redundent. Diversity comes from a variety of things such as race, age, and background. While I do understand, at least in the age representation of such things, that they could do better on that, you still fail to include, the other sides of diversity such as race, color, backgrounds, flaws and diffrent characstics of each character that is presented on screen. You focused and made your point on what side of it but what about the rest? What about that? We get the age argument but where is the rest? Also, it would be presumptous of producers of such media to expect that girls and teens will only be attracted to things that show girls and teens. Indeed it would be, but they don't. The show is aimed and geared towards girls and young teens, therefore the main focus will be on them. Like in most other media.

That's like saying a film targeted to white people should only have white characters or that a film targeted to black people should only have black characters.

No. No one is saying that. What I'm saying is that its unrealistic to go in with a mind that there will be equal showing of other races or such in a film (for the sake of example) aimed towards white people. The main spotlight will be on them and therefore anyone or thing else will have little showing. Once again diversity is more than just age or gender but is a combination of both and variety of others.
MisterMittens

Con

Thank you esteemed opponent.
Before we begin with the crossfire, allow me to establish where we currently our in this debate. Basically, allow me to write a summary of the past couple rounds.

Ms. Bunny opens this debate with a single case: the affirmative case. The affirmative case consists of one argument which is that Monster High represents a diverse racial background of people interacting with each other without regard to their racial differences.
Basically, the only line of reasoning that Ms. Bunny has for the affirmative case says that racial diversity makes for good representation for boys and girls in general.

My case, on the other hand, asks an important question. Is it enough to represent diversity in only racial quantities?? And for my case to hold true, I must say no. And so I say no. The basis for my case is that racial diversity isn't the only one of its kind in existence. For my case, I state three others: age diversity, physical diversity, and gender diversity.
I show that none of these diversities are covered in Monster High. My opponent does not deny that these diversities aren't covered. She in fact concedes the lack of physical diversity in the second round. In other words, she concedes that with all the uniform skinny, unblemished appearances of the model-like characters, Monster High actually sends a bad message of representation and diversity. Basically she concedes that the counter-affirmative case is true.

Second, she concedes the lack of gender diversity which has all the same implications as the lack in physical diversity.
On these two points alone, I believe Mittens wins the debate.

But let's delve into the last part of my case, which covers age diversity. Ms. Bunny once again tells us that age diversity isn't important because the target audience of the show is girls. And once again I say that the gender of the audience doesn't matter in terms of diversity and representation.
If they're trying to target girls, then yes. Having the show have an unfair representation of diversity does make for a good and successful marketing.
Example: racist films with racist themes made for racist people also makes for good and successful marketing too. But just because it makes for good marketing, doesn't mean that its themes are good. The racist film is still racist.
Ms. Bunny makes a good case for the marketing logic of Monster High, but she doesn't realize that good marketing has nothing to do with the theme, message, and diversities of the franchise.
Regardless of target audience (young girls), Monster High still sends a bad message on age diversity and representation. This same applies to gender diversity. Even if the resolution hadn't specified 'girls or boys', the argument still weighs in favor of Mittens. The identity of the target audience is, for lack of a better word, irrelevant.

This is a threefold victory for Mittens.
All of Mittens' cases have been overwhelmingly logical and relevant while Bunny's case hits slightly offmark. Which is unfortunate because that means Mittens wins.
Counter-affirmative affirmed.
Back to you Ms. Bunny.
Debate Round No. 4
Bunny2015

Pro

For the sake of just finishing my argument and nothing more I'll countinue with this now pointless argument.

Ms. Bunny opens this debate with a single case: the affirmative case. The affirmative case consists of one argument which is that Monster High represents a diverse racial background of people interacting with each other without regard to their racial differences.
Basically, the only line of reasoning that Ms. Bunny has for the affirmative case says that racial diversity makes for good representation for boys and girls in general.

Its almost hypocrtical for you to say so considering your main argument revolved around gender and age primarily. Your last line proves that your still on the "representation" of gender in your last statement.

My case, on the other hand, asks an important question. Is it enough to represent diversity in only racial quantities??

If you have actually read what I stated, I menioned that diviersity comes from a variety of things. Diversity comes from a variety of things such as race, age, and background. Not only is that a direct quote from my previous argument, I also added the diffrent backgrounds (like the newest character is an orphan) as well as the diffrent flaws and characstics of every character to that statement. So, no. I was not only referring to race. Your eyes only saw that.

But let's delve into the last part of my case, which covers age diversity. Ms. Bunny once again tells us that age diversity isn't important because the target audience of the show is girls. And once again I say that the gender of the audience doesn't matter in terms of diversity and representation.

NO.
I'm saying that its unrealistic to go in with the idea that in a show targeted towards young, teenage girls, that there will be a fair, equal showing of guys or adults. Its okay to use that in an argument but your just trying to prove your point in a single side. I'm still trying to explore all the sides of diversity which you still have yet to state besides age and race. Which are valid arguments but do not stand strong enough on their own to prove your point in the whole spectrum of diversity and representation.

I'm glad this argument comes to a close as everything after the 3rd round has been redundant and repetitive. I don't care to win only to show where I stand in a debate. I'll let you off believing you won. I quit.
MisterMittens

Con

Thank you esteemed opponent! It's really been great!
I shall rap up this debate so bear with me mate!

*ahem*

Bunny actually misses one very important point that I've been making and its that the sheer quantity and proportion of diversities (age/gender/physique) that has gone unrepresented more than tilts the scales against the affirmative. Basically, in colloquial terms, it's one (race) against three (age/gender/physique) with the representation of the latter either glaringly nonexistent (age/physique) or weak (age).

Now the crux of Bunny's refutation rests on this:
I'm saying that its unrealistic to go in with the idea that in a show targeted towards young, teenage girls, that there will be a fair, equal showing of guys or adults.
Whether or not it's unrealistic does not matter. Lack of representation and diversity is still lack of representation and diversity. I could similarly say that it is unrealistic to go with the idea that in a show targeted towards racists and homophones that there will be any showing of any diversity race and/or sexual orientation. It would be making a film that no racist or homophobe would want to buy. Whether Bunny knows it or not, her argument rests on a form of marketing logic. She doesn't actually show or explain why the mismatch between film themes and target audience is unrealistic nor does she show how it actually refutes my arguments. Neither does she show how it supports hers.
I repeat, whether or not it's unrealistic does not matter. Lack of representation and diversity is still lack of representation and diversity. The film could send a bad message, but still be realistic in terms of a theme to target audience relation.
Aye?

Without further ado, allow me to wax repetitive:
Bunny doesn't think these facets of bad representation of diversity are strong enough despite being valid arguments.
I say that the numbers beg to differ.
86% of the age population is unrepresented.
50% of the gender population is underrepresented.
Peoples of physiques that differ from the uniform skinny legs and thin midriffs of the Monster High characters are unrepresented.
If we were to apply these proportions to the real world, each category underrepresents billions of people. This is the very definition of lacking diversity and representation and is the very reason why Monster High doesn't actually send a good message.

Uhm.
Bai.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.