 |
| source |
A friend on Facebook referred this article to me (side note: I LOVE when ya'll do that! Information sharing FTW) and said she was curious for some reflection on it.
For those too lazy to click over, it profiles a college-age woman Galia Slayen who struggled with an eating disorder and as a high school project took on the task of presenting Barbie as she would truly stand as a person: 5'9", 110 pounds, and with a body mass index of 16 (18.5-24.9 is considered healthy for an adult woman--16 is anorexic, though I will add that BMI is definitely a flawed indicator of overall health since it only takes into account weight and height). Barbie's shoes would be a size 3 (on a woman of 5'9", mind you!), with a bust of 39", a waist of 18", and 33" hips. She would likely not have enough body fat to have a period, and due to her enormous breasts, minuscule waist, and pin thin legs, she would have to crawl on all fours to move, since she would not be able to walk.
First, I'm super proud and happy for Slayen that she has conquered her own disease and to now speak out as an advocate for moving as a society towards a saner and healthier body image.
Now onto a good question: if her project somehow impacts Mattell's executive and design team and they made a doll with more "normal" (read: humanly possible) features, would it make a difference in terms of development of the body image of the average American girl?
Maybe.
Everyone loves to think (myself included sometimes) that they're smarter than advertisers and too aware and intelligent to fall for the idea of the perfect female body that we're presented with. But it would be damn near impossible to not be influenced with the onslaught of images we see everyday, and study after study reveals that we all are, menfolk definitely included (rise in male eating disorders, anyone?). And although this is based only on my own anecdotal evidence, people with eating disorders (recovered or active) tend to be obsessed with images of perfect bodies. I've seen it in myself and fellow patients in treatment, but also in the comments section of sites like Skinny vs Curvy, where an admission of a past relationship with an eating disorder results in a chorus of "me too!" Granted, it's a chicken and egg thing (did the ED lead to the obsession or vice versa?), but it does indicate a real relationship between obsession over perfect body images, self-image, and eating disorders.
Can Barbie be held responsible for the rise in eating disorders and body misery we see today?
No. Not entirely. But she certainly doesn't help--neither do fashion spreads featuring only models with massive gaps between their thighs or movies where women any larger than a size 4 are cast only as "the fat funny friend" and never as the romantic lead or wildly photoshopped celebrities.
But a doll with realistic body proportions would be a definite step in the right direction.
What say you?
Much love,
The Sheriff
Barbie's figure has actually changed over the course of 50-something years. Her waist-to-hip proportions were greater when she first came into the toy scene because most women wore shapewear to make their waists appear smaller. Today, we really only do that to smooth ourselves out/make sure there are no visible pantylines if we're wearing cheap, unlined skirts. Also, anyone of Barbie's proportions as listed above, no matter what the numbers, will not be able to find clothes. Modern, ready-to-wear fashions are made assuming that a woman's bustline is 8" greater than her waist, and her hips about 10" greater. A size 4 might be, for example, 34-26-36. Besides, Barbie's measurements, whether based on 1959 or 2011 is still different/curvier/more outrageous than mainstream celebrities - and especially models (who are, by the way, proportionately much, much smaller. 5'11" and size 0 is not the same as 5'3" and size 0. The latter is just very thin while the former is well...not healthy)
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I don't know what to think about Barbie. On one hand, she's allowed little girls to imagine themselves as something other than a mother or teacher - Barbie has, after all, held many different jobs, ranging from more "traditional" female positions like teacher, secretary or nurse to politician, astronaut and more. With the exception of possibly Jem (not sure if you're familiar with her. She was big in the mid-80s when I was in the early elementary grades - Jem was a singer and her alter ego, Jerrica was a record producer...I'm still hoping that the rights will be sold for a live-action movie), no other toy that specifically targets girls post-1959 allowed them to think outside of the mother-teacher role (ok, you can play doctor/vet with Cabbage Patches/stuffed animals).
This reminds me of an editorial recently published in the Wall Street Journal about why fraternities should be shut down (http://tinyurl.com/3apwsv9). Yes, fraternities create a dangerously misogynistic atmosphere on college campuses; yes, barbies promote a dangerous body standard for young women. Neither of these are the causes of the root problems, but both are products of larger issues in American culture. If little steps are the way to get things moving in the right direction, then I think that a barbie doll with a less terrifying body shape will do a little bit of good, and could do a lot bit of good.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you posted this, and I love the thoughtful comments. I think body image issues should be something everyone gives a thought to improving... Little girls (and little boys) are often the victims and we need to stop emotionally handicapping our kids. :/
ReplyDeleteI spent a fair amount of time playing with Barbies when I was young and the things that really stand out in my memory are the large breasts and the long legs. I definitely internalized those things as marks of female beauty. But! After reading this post I went to look for photos of my favorite Barbies, Midge (freckles!) and one that was supposed to be Native American (dark hair!).
ReplyDeleteIn my search I came across Barbie Basics, a recent release, which seem to be waaay skinnier than the dolls I remember. Am I right?
One note: I don't think it's fair to say, regarding the BMI, that "16 is anorexic." There are any number of reasons someone could have that low of a BMI without having an eating disorder: malnutrition due to poverty, an illness, a genetic condition. I'm only a few pounds above a 16 and that's just because I'm a broke grad student with a fast metabolism.
16 is classified as medically anorexic, but I did note and deeply believe that BMI is a flawed indicator of health/well-being in regards to weight. I do think it's meaningful that Mattell created a doll with an extremely slender build that would put her, if she were a person, at risk for a plethora of health problems.
ReplyDelete