Blog #4 response

1.) The first article is basically arguing that by making action figures, such as G.I. Joe's, have proportionally more muscles and wider bodies than most humans do that they are encouraging young boys to obsess or focus too much on trying to become "ripped" and "buff". The other article says that they are just toys, which they are, and that the exagerated muscle sizes of them are not important, because most kids don't take toy appearance too seriously or they will want to become more muscular, like the toys, for many other more compelling reasons.

2.) For the first article the ideal audience would be parents who are against "violent" or action toys and possibly teachers who want them banned from schools, ect. The other article is more laid back and relaxed, it would probably appeal more to young boys and teenagers, as well as dads who want their kids to be tough or for them just to have fun.

3.) My parents never denied me a toy for any reason, being a male i am more inclined to support kids playing with action toys. The first article is very serios toned, however they seem to be making a big deal out of nothing really. The second article is again more laid back and "chill", it appeals more to the idea that kids play with toys they like, and that they do not neccessarily want to become like them.