Barbie Board?

[herdcentral]

I saw several Barbie Collies this weekend, I think I threw up a little in my mouth. They're so ugly! and fluffy! I also can't figure out why they seem to have a big bulbous forehead and far apart wide-set eyes... blech...

 

I personally dont think it is about what a Border collie looks like, more about how it works. Isnt that the point?

 

One of the best little working bred dogs I know is extremely fluffy and somewhat stocky. I have a show bred dog, who definitely doesnt have a bulbous forhead. She has a very long thin face and is lean and slender. But the little fluffy stocky working bred dog would absolutely outstrip my girl in the working stakes.

 

The names dont worry me at all, Barbie, Coyote, the dogs certainly dont care.

 

I no longer agree with the conformation breeding thing since being on the board, but that has nothing to do with looks or name calling. It just seems logical to me that the essence of a Border collie is about working livestock.

 

The dogs are simply innocent products of human manipulation. It is really the philosophy behind the breeding that should make one feel sick.

[Sue R]

I personally dont think it is about what a Border collie looks like, more about how it works. Isnt that the point?...The dogs are simply innocent products of human manipulation. It is really the philosophy behind the breeding that should make one feel sick.

You said it very nicely here, and I think most everyone would agree with you.

[bcnewe2]

I no longer agree with the conformation breeding thing since being on the board, but that has nothing to do with looks or name calling. It just seems logical to me that the essence of a Border collie is about working livestock.

Forgive me for not knowing your history better but does this mean you are a cross over? And if so, what was it that really made you open your eyes and how come the "rough" language here didn't chase you off?

 

Yes I aree you said it very nicely.

[Katelynn & Gang]

Isn't it hypocritical of a working line supporter to make any negative comments about appearance at all?

 

No, really it is not hypocritical for a working breeder/handler (most are both) to make a negative comment on a dogs appearance. Especially when a certain "type" proves repeatedly useless or less then desirable for the purpose of which the breed was/is (and should only be) created for.

 

Katelynn

[herdcentral]

Forgive me for not knowing your history better but does this mean you are a cross over? And if so, what was it that really made you open your eyes and how come the "rough" language here didn't chase you off?

 

Sound logic is what interests me. I was looking for an agility dog, a 5mth old BC was looking to be rehomed through no fault of her own, complete with her show pedigree, health testing for dysplasias etc. and good agility dogs in her background. Sounded perfect, I didnt give it much more thought. Never had a BC before and knew nothing about them. I was running into orthopedic problems (elbow dysplasias, cruciates) with my favourite breed the ACD as a result I believe of poor breeding and was looking for a light agile type of dog.

 

I even showed her up untill she was 12 months old when I sterilised her - much to the horror of the show people, but I was never going to breed her anyway.

 

I had my debates and arguments on this board but the end conclusion was what I percieved as the logical one. The language I dont care about, its just what sometimes happens when people are passionate about something. You sometimes have to look past that.

 

Why would you want to ruin one of the best working dogs in the world based on looks alone. I actually dont get the whole show thing really. Some of the ways that dogs have been bred to conform to certain looks at the expense of everything else is to my mind appalling. The discussions on the board simply helped to crystalise that for me. There is nothing more beautiful than a working dog working.

 

I do however adore my show bred dogs, one of which is my heart dog, but will not be going down that track again. I think it is not in the best interest of the 2 breeds I love best.

 

I can only be bothered being critical of looks or conformation when it is harming a dogs health. For the BC a certain look is merely the signature of an undesirable breeding philosophy.

[Eileen Stein]

A little history that may be unfamiliar to some. The term "Barbie Collie" was coined by Colin Campbell (ccnnc on these Boards), and was first published in a post to a border collie internet list in early 1995. It designated Kennel Club Border Collies bred for conformation, and specifically denoted what border collies who were taken into the AKC and bred to conform to the AKC breed standard would become. It has since gone round the world and taken firm hold because it was such an inspired coinage and expresses so much. Just as the point of a Barbie doll is how she looks, so too the point of a conformation-bred Border Collie is how it looks. Just as all Barbie dolls look alike, so too the application of the conformation standard in the breed ring tends to result in all Barbie Collies looking alike. It also expresses the truth that breeding for conformation is producing a different breed that ought to be called by a different name. It even carries a subliminal allusion to Australia ("throw another shrimp on the barbie"), where the conformation Border Collie originated. And finally, the allusion to Barbie dolls in the name conveys how frivolous and shallow most border collie people think this attempt to redefine and reshape our breed is.

 

If you disapprove of breeding for conformation, then the term "Barbie Collie" does indeed have a connotation of disapproval -- not disapproval of the dogs, who are innocent of any offense and incapable of having their feelings hurt by the term, but disapproval of the mindset that produced them. As for the breeders of these dogs, some of them apparently don't mind the term at all. We have had conformation people on these Boards call their dogs Barbies as a simple descriptive, and a number of conformation BCs have registered names incorporating the term (Ch. OmegaMtn Barbie Doll, Ch Pawcific I've Been Barbie-ized, etc.). Some of them no doubt resent it greatly, but I doubt very much that they would be receptive to our point of view whether the term "Barbie Collie" was used in explaining it or not.

 

I simply don't understand analogizing "Barbie Collie" to a racial or ethnic slur. In the first place, the sting of an ethnic slur is in the hurt, humiliation, resentment, etc. it causes in its target. Dogs are incapable of feeling emotions like this in response to a descriptive phrase; for that reason alone there is no parallel. If someone says, "I think Barbie Collies are ugly," it is somewhat insulting -- although no more so than saying "I think Mexican Hairless dogs (or pugs, or Shar Peis) are ugly" -- but the insult is in the "ugly" part, not in the "Barbie" part. If someone says, "This dog is a Barbie Collie" it is no more insulting to the dog than to say "This dog is a Papillon." Both dogs were bred to conform to an appearance standard; neither dog was bred for herding ability. Implicit in both terms is the message, "A dog bred in this way is not a real border collie." That is a true statement, and one that it is often important to emphasize in the case of the dog who is inaccurately being claimed to be a border collie -- after all, if you don't say it, nobody can hear it. But it's not an insult to the dog itself. Pretty much all dogs are wonderful beings and deserving of appreciation and love, including Papillons, Mexican Hairless, Pugs, Shar Peis, mutts from the pound -- and Barbie Collies. The valuable, useful and economical descriptive term "Barbie Collie" takes nothing away from that. It simply expresses a truth that many of those who want to breed border collies away from their essential nature and still call them Border Collies don't want to hear.

[pansmom]

No, really it is not hypocritical for a working breeder/handler (most are both) to make a negative comment on a dogs appearance. Especially when a certain "type" proves repeatedly useless or less then desirable for the purpose of which the breed was/is (and should only be) created for.

 

So genetically, commonly, appearance traits can be associated with behavioral? My first instinct is to balk at that idea, like you know, blondes are less intelligent, it's a crock. I mean I know there are physical traits associated for example with certain mental disabilities in humans, but is that really what people think the physical "types" the AKC is promoting are? (Please note, these are honest questions. I don't know much about genetics. Only what I learned in college ten or so years ago.)

 

ETA: Thought about it more. Obviously, faults in ability that result from structure might cause working breeder/handlers to criticize the structure. So for example if the too-wideset eyes cause lack of ability in herding--yes, a working breeder/handler could very easily and without any hypocrisy at all criticize the trait. Same goes for thick legs and heavy structure (ok and yes I can see how that would affect working ability--corgis can't run like BCs! obviously!). But bulbous forehead and fluff? That's not really a trait that affects working ability is it? (Or does the fluff get in the way?) Note: just for posterity's sake--my BC, Vala, though I rescued her from the pound and do not know her bloodlines, is only 28 pounds, has a typical coyote collie coat, and very thin legs, she floats when she walks, and runs like the wind. About the opposite look of a corgi. So I'm not emotionally invested in this, just trying to understand.

[Katelynn & Gang]

But bulbous forehead and fluff? That's not really a trait that affects working ability is it?

 

The fluff, yes. There are traits such as the coat which are to each their own but excessive coat like that in the show ring is not desirable. These dogs have to have coats that are low maintenance. My dogs come in, covered/soaked/drenched in a muddy pudding and after drying, they are clean again. There just isn't enough time in life to have to keep washing and bathing a dog that was suppose to be bred for work and should maintain a clean coat naturally. This isn't even thinking of them getting brush stuck in their coats and have to groom that out.

 

There are some rougher coats in the working lines but usually they are anywhere near that of the show bred dogs. I have only ever bred my female to rough coated males because I was/am very much in love with the dogs themselves. I did however keep only smooth coated puppies. The litters were bred for working, each puppy had a equal chance at being the best in the litter, so I could choose which ever one struck my fancy.

 

For the bulbous forehead, foreheads like those seen in the show ring are not often seen on a trail field. Considering the numbers of dogs in Open and working on farms without the bulbous foreheads and the numbers with . . . . .

[Shetlander]

The valuable, useful and economical descriptive term "Barbie Collie" takes nothing away from that. It simply expresses a truth that many of those who want to breed border collies away from their essential nature and still call them Border Collies don't want to hear.

 

Is it truly economical if it takes three paragraphs to explain the term's origin, intent and general use to those not in the know? I agree it's shorthand to many here, but not to all and to many (here and elsewhere) it is off-putting at best. If you want to reach people and pursaude them, using words they may find offensive (or others similar to them have repeatedly demonstarated they find offensive) doesn't strike me as the best strategy.

 

Show bred or sports bred or non working bred may not carry the note of disapproval regarding breeding practice, but none of those takes especially long to type. I'd think the disapproval aspect would likely be found in what else you had to say about dogs bred in such a manner.

[juliepoudrier]

I still think the important thing to remember is that you can be offended *or not* by any term used to describe your clothing choices or hairstyle, your dog, your choice of automobile, your choice of school, or where you choose to live. ISTM that people who want to be offended will be offended, no matter what. Simple concept. If you don't like specific terminology, don't engage in it. And I know this has also been said a gazillion times before: Telling people what to say or how to say it NEVER works. In fact, it often backfires. And yet, we go 'round and 'round again on this same topic....

 

J.

[kelpiegirl]

Jeez, my Danny would then I guess, have to be called a Barbie Collie, because his tail hair is so long, it looks like it has extensions....

 

 

The fluff, yes. There are traits such as the coat which are to each their own but excessive coat like that in the show ring is not desirable. These dogs have to have coats that are low maintenance. My dogs come in, covered/soaked/drenched in a muddy pudding and after drying, they are clean again. There just isn't enough time in life to have to keep washing and bathing a dog that was suppose to be bred for work and should maintain a clean coat naturally. This isn't even thinking of them getting brush stuck in their coats and have to groom that out.

 

There are some rougher coats in the working lines but usually they are anywhere near that of the show bred dogs. I have only ever bred my female to rough coated males because I was/am very much in love with the dogs themselves. I did however keep only smooth coated puppies. The litters were bred for working, each puppy had a equal chance at being the best in the litter, so I could choose which ever one struck my fancy.

 

For the bulbous forehead, foreheads like those seen in the show ring are not often seen on a trail field. Considering the numbers of dogs in Open and working on farms without the bulbous foreheads and the numbers with . . . . .

[Ooky]

Is it truly economical if it takes three paragraphs to explain the term's origin, intent and general use to those not in the know?

 

I believe it is, for many. Like I described a few pages ago, this is the term that *really* explained it to my husband, in two simple words. He got much of what I had been trying to say, and much of what Eileen's written here, instantly, because it is such a good metaphor. And he is not ever on the boards, so I feel he was a pretty good case study.

 

Show bred or sports bred or non working bred may not carry the note of disapproval regarding breeding practice, but none of those takes especially long to type.

 

I had been trying to explain show bred/sport bred to my husband and he kept playing the devil's advocate. "Why can't breeding for agility give you great dogs? The show dogs may be a bit different, but that's true of all breeds, and its rediculous to think they are a totally different breed than the working bcs." etc. That phrase made him say, "oh-hhhh, I think I see now", where all my long-winded ranting had not. Really well-coined phrases ARE distinctly powerful.

 

Of course the Westminster videos were the BIG eye opener - but he likely would have never expressed interest in watching some if I hadn't been able to get through verbally first.

[Shetlander]

ISTM that people who want to be offended will be offended, no matter what.

 

Many will. Some might be more willing to listen and learn if their backs weren't up because of a common misunderstanding over what a word means.

 

Simple concept. If you don't like specific terminology, don't engage in it. And I know this has also been said a gazillion times before: Telling people what to say or how to say it NEVER works.

 

Neither it seems does telling people NOT to be offended.

[Eileen Stein]

Is it truly economical if it takes three paragraphs to explain the term's origin, intent and general use to those not in the know?

 

Yes, it is truly economical -- it's two words long. It's shorthand, with a world of meaning encapsulated in it. I deconstructed and explicated it, but, like a poem, it says what it says without the need for such interpretation.

 

 

I agree it's shorthand to many here, but not to all and to many (here and elsewhere) it is off-putting at best. If you want to reach people and pursaude them, using words they may find offensive (or others similar to them have repeatedly demonstarated they find offensive) doesn't strike me as the best strategy.

 

Show bred or sports bred or non working bred may not carry the note of disapproval regarding breeding practice, but none of those takes especially long to type. I'd think the disapproval aspect would likely be found in what else you had to say about dogs bred in such a manner.

 

"Show Collie" or "Conformation Collie" doesn't work, because they describe the Rough and Smooth Collies. I'm sure "Show-bred Border Collie," "Conformation-bred Border Collie," "Border Collie from show (or conformation) lines" would sound lovely to conformation breeders for exactly the reason it's unacceptable to me -- namely, because it implies that dogs bred for the show ring and dogs bred for stockwork are equally acceptable components or strains of the border collie breed. I do not believe that, and so I am unwilling to use terminology which says that, in any but the rarest of circumstances. I do not want to reach and persuade people at the expense of speaking the truth, and I actually believe that the people who CAN be reached are those who can be made to stop and think. "Barbie Collie" does that. People who are incapable of critically examining a novel idea that may contradict their unquestioned assumptions are not going to be persuaded by anything I might say. They will certainly not find "A dog bred for conformation is not a true border collie" any more acceptable without the shorthand, and that is the message I want to convey.

[Shetlander]

They will certainly not find "A dog bred for conformation is not a true border collie" any more acceptable without the shorthand, and that is the message I want to convey.

 

No argument there.

[juliepoudrier]

Many will. Some might be more willing to listen and learn if their backs weren't up because of a common misunderstanding over what a word means.

 

Neither it seems does telling people NOT to be offended.

Yes, Liz, we could go back and forth on this till the cows come home. I think Eileen's most recent comments explain very well why some folks will continue to use terms like Barbie collie, even if others persist in getting their backs up over it.

 

I'll be even more blunt: I don't really care if people get offended. As I've said here ad nauseum over the years, people who are looking to be offended will surely find something to be offended by. While I personally try not to be offensive, I also don't think I need to go out of my way to try to make sure that nothing I ever say might be interpreted by others as somehow being offensive. Life really isn't all about being made to feel good by others all the time.

 

J.

[Shetlander]

Message heard loud and clear, Julie.

[SS Cressa]

"Show Collie" or "Conformation Collie" doesn't work, because they describe the Rough and Smooth Collies... I do not want to reach and persuade people at the expense of speaking the truth, and I actually believe that the people who CAN be reached are those who can be made to stop and think. "Barbie Collie" does that.

 

So you don't want to say show COLLIE because it describe the rough and smooth COLLIE but saying "barbie" COLLIE wouldn't be?! If saying show COLLIE on a border COLLIE board confuse people on what breed you are talking about the how is say barbie COLLIE any different?

 

I'm sure "Show-bred Border Collie," "Conformation-bred Border Collie," "Border Collie from show (or conformation) lines" would sound lovely to conformation breeders for exactly the reason it's unacceptable to me -- namely, because it implies that dogs bred for the show ring and dogs bred for stockwork are equally acceptable components or strains of the border collie breed... They will certainly not find "A dog bred for conformation is not a true border collie" any more acceptable without the shorthand, and that is the message I want to convey.

 

If you want to call it a different name why can't you call it show border? :-D It still easy to write, its less letters!, its only two words, AND its even less syllable! LOL

 

ETA: poor spelling

[Root Beer]

I'll be even more blunt: I don't really care if people get offended. As I've said here ad nauseum over the years, people who are looking to be offended will surely find something to be offended by. While I personally try not to be offensive, I also don't think I need to go out of my way to try to make sure that nothing I ever say might be interpreted by others as somehow being offensive. Life really isn't all about being made to feel good by others all the time.

 

That's all true.

 

Still, it is, I think, worth keeping in mind that someone who is offended by having his or her dog referred to as "barbie" isn't going to take a word that is said by the person using the term at all seriously.

 

Whether or not one cares whether he or she is taken seriously is, of course, a personal choice. But if one's goal is really to try to educate those who honestly don't know about working Border Collies, the split in the breed, etc., then calling that person's dog by a term that he or she considers offensive (barbie, etc.) is, most often, going to cut off all possibility of achieving that goal. On the other hand, referring to those dogs as "conformation bred Border Collies" does serve to keep lines of communication open and leaves the possibility of education in place.

 

Just food for thought. I'm not personally offended by it since none of my dogs even fit the category, so this isn't a post made from a defensive position and I'm not taking anything personally, etc.

 

There's more to it, though, than people's feelings and being offensive. If one really wants to be listened to and taken seriously, then one does have to consider the effect that using a term that a certain type of dog owner might consider offensive will have on the potential listener.

[SoloRiver]

My favorite dog is a backyard bred, mill bred FRED from some shitty pups-for-bucks dealer in central PA and on top of that, he's pretty much a biscuit eater. He is not a well bred dog, and I hope his breeder is no longer producing dogs (full siblings no less, as he apparently just kept putting Solo's parents together over and over). On top of that, my favorite dog has what are best described as serious psychiatric issues. Do I love him any less for any of this? No. In fact, I would be willing to bet that I love Solo more than pretty much everyone here loves his or her own dogs (yes, I did just say that -- I believe it, too). Do I give a crap if someone describes Solo as exactly what he is? No. Because there isn't anything personal about any of it; he is what he is.

 

Let someone truly insult my dog -- say, tell me that he doesn't deserve to live because he isn't "normal" or "good," or that he's taking up a space in a home that could have gone to a "good" dog (and that's happened before) -- then you'll see my claws come out, but that isn't the same thing as objectively describing him. I would never insult an individual dog, and I am sorry that such a thing has occurred in this thread and on these Boards. I am also mature enough not to go around calling people out (for example, if I see a Barbie Collie, I'm not going to go up to its owner and start berating him/her for having a Barbie Collie) and I am pretty sure that most of the folks here feel and act the same way. This doesn't have to be a personal discussion.

 

I think Eileen summed it up well and brilliantly. Many fields have jargon, or terms that succinctly express something very specific within a certain context. (I would give some examples from my field because we are the be-all and end-all of jargon -- yay cladistics -- but then Izzysdad might accuse me of having an advanced degree or something.) In Border Collies these include terms like "style," "eye," "clappy," and "sticky." "Barbie Collie" is a useful piece of jargon that delivers a "world of meaning" as Eileen put it in just two words, or even just one, because in certain contexts if someone refers to "Barbies" I know (1) exactly what he or she is talking about and (2) that he or she is on the same page as I am in those contexts.

 

Anyway, thanks to Eileen and Pearse, and everyone else relevant, for having your brains turned on.

[Eileen Stein]

If you want to call it a different name why can't you call it show border? :-D It still easy to write, its less letters!, its only two words, AND its even less syllable! LOL

 

On the other hand, referring to those dogs as "conformation bred Border Collies" does serve to keep lines of communication open and leaves the possibility of education in place.

 

As I wrote earlier, I don't want to use those terms because they implicitly accept that dogs bred for the show ring and dogs bred for stockwork are equally legitimate components or strains of the border collie breed. Therefore, they undercut my core message. I don't believe you educate people by undercutting your core message. What you do convey is the feeling that I'm okay and you're okay and we're all real nice people and that's the most important thing. And I do understand that that's a message most people find very agreeable, and they would be only too happy to accept that as my core message and discount the rest.

 

ETA: In addition, Cressa, "show border" applies to a Border Terrier, whereas "Barbie Collie" has never been applied to any other breed and thus has no potential for confusion whatsoever.

 

If one really wants to be listened to and taken seriously, then one does have to consider the effect that using a term that a certain type of dog owner might consider offensive will have on the potential listener.

 

I'd be surprised if anyone participating in this discussion has not considered that.

[juliepoudrier]

Kristine,

I think the folks who will tune you out because of a word aren't going to listen much better if you try a different word. The second they perceive that you are anti whatever it is they think is important, you're not likely to get through to them in a meaningful way anyway.

 

FWIW, on an individual basis I do try to reason with folks and show them the differences, etc., in a non-confrontational way, but nothing gets my back up more than folks coming along and being offended largely just so they can troll (the individuals being insulted on this thread have been here quite long enough to know better, and have gotten "offended" repeatedly because they *can* and simply for the sake of argument) or others who feel an overwhelming need to trot out the old chestnut about "catching more flies with honey."

 

In fact, I think that for most of this thread I tried to be reasonable and just point out errors in fact or supposition. I don't care about the term Barbie collie any more than I care about the idea that red dogs aren't good workers or sheep won't respect a mostly white dog. My new puppy may well have a big coat and a blcoky head and if someone eventually refers to him as a Barbie collie, I don't really care, though I may or may not point out that he's working bred. In fact, I've made jokes about what the heck I'm doing with a dog who is rough coated and might not have prick ears. Surely all the folks who own rough-coated, non-prick-eared dogs and who've read *those* comments haven't gotten upset/offended because my stated preference is for smooth coats and prick ears!

 

We're (mostly) adults here and if we can't be plainspoken about the things we're passionate about, then I guess perhaps we're better off not speaking at all. And then this forum would lose a lot of valuable experience and insight. And as Eileen noted above, we could all spend our time trying to make each other feel good, but in my experience, being a bit uncomfortable never got in the way of my learning something new and in fact might even have spurred me on. I don't think I'm some huge exception to the rule.

 

Take the bad with the good, folks, in the end nothing anyone says here can truly affect you personally.

 

J.

[SS Cressa]

As I wrote earlier, I don't want to use those terms because they implicitly accept that dogs bred for the show ring and dogs bred for stockwork are equally legitimate components or strains of the border collie breed. Therefore, they undercut my core message. I don't believe you educate people by undercutting your core message. What you do convey is the feeling that I'm okay and you're okay and we're all real nice people and that's the most important thing. And I do understand that that's a message most people find very agreeable, and they would be only too happy to accept that as my core message and discount the rest.

 

I thought you were objecting to the term "show border collie". Since the term border collie can be refer to either working or show. By shorting it to show borders you are NOT saying they are equal. From what I heard most working folk don't like the term Border since they think of either AKC or a countries borders. Most AKC people already use the term border to describe their border collies to shorten it to show borders the working folk will know what you are talking about, the newbies would know what you were talking about and you still won't be offending or scaring them off. While still being able to "educate" them.

 

ETA: umm LOL there is WAY TOO MANY dog breeds abbreviation and code names!

[SS Cressa]

Too be honest I think the term barbie border or barbie collie is a cute term for endearment. I was more offended when an agility person came up to me and told me my dog reminded her of her own border collies since Cressa "look?" like a coyote (all legs, no coat, short back). LOL Her dogs stunk at agility while Cressa is smooth, fast, and under control. I wink and smile and said "She too small to be a coyote. She's an little fox!"

[Root Beer]

I don't believe you educate people by undercutting your core message. What you do convey is the feeling that I'm okay and you're okay and we're all real nice people and that's the most important thing. And I do understand that that's a message most people find very agreeable, and they would be only too happy to accept that as my core message and discount the rest.

 

I would agree that you don't educate people by undercutting your core message. But there are ways to remain true to one's message and still communicate with people in a way that leaves lines of communication open. I am certainly not talking about advocating an "I'm OK, you're OK" kind of thing, but about ways of communicating that show respect for the individual that one seeks to educate, while holding true to a different position. There are a lot of possibilities in between using terms that people feel are offensive and acting like there isn't any problem at all.

 

Like I said, whether or not one cares about being taken seriously is a personal choice. But anyone who wants to be taken seriously won't get there by using terms that a person, or group of persons, feels are offensive. And whether one cares about offending people or not is a personal choice. But anyone who wants to educate isn't going to get there by using terms that he or she knows that others find offensive.

 

I'm not telling anyone what terms to use or not to use. Just saying that there can be unintended ramifications for our word choices and it can be prudent to take those into account when we want to educate.