[Daria]

Korochkina Daria  asked the Naked Scientists:
   
Is it true that if a woman had "Barbie" proportions, she would have to move on all fours?

What do you think?

[Geezer]

I wouldn't think so. It's really not that difficult to learn to walk on stilts. Plasterers even attach extensions to their legs so they can plaster ceilings without using ladders.

[Bored chemist]

Plasterers are not generally shaped like Barbie.

[Jolly- Joliver]

Umm sexist conotations to Barbie...

[CliffordK]

In the past there was a procedure of rib removal/resection that could enhance an hourglass shape.

http://surgeries.cc/extreme/extremerib.html

What is the world coming to if it takes a few nips and tucks to make a woman look like a woman   []

[Jolly- Joliver]

In the past there was a procedure of rib removal/resection that could enhance an hourglass shape.

http://surgeries.cc/extreme/extremerib.html

What is the world coming to if it takes a few nips and tucks to make a woman look like a woman   []

That has been going on for a while, it was the petti-Coat before started arround 1585A.D nearly 500 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petticoat

[Bored chemist]

Clothing is not the same as surgery.

[JP]

In the past there was a procedure of rib removal/resection that could enhance an hourglass shape.

http://surgeries.cc/extreme/extremerib.html

What is the world coming to if it takes a few nips and tucks to make a woman look like a woman   []

Are you sure?  Snopes disagrees:  http://www.snopes.com/horrors/vanities/ribs.asp

Then there's this: http://www.snopes.com/photos/people/smallwaist.asp
Due entirely to corsets, apparently.  It does appear that she can still walk.

[Jolly- Joliver]

In the past there was a procedure of rib removal/resection that could enhance an hourglass shape.

http://surgeries.cc/extreme/extremerib.html

What is the world coming to if it takes a few nips and tucks to make a woman look like a woman   []

What is the world coming to if it takes a few nips and tucks to make a woman look like a woman   []

Are you sure?  Snopes disagrees:  http://www.snopes.com/horrors/vanities/ribs.asp

Then there's this: http://www.snopes.com/photos/people/smallwaist.asp
Due entirely to corsets, apparently.  It does appear that she can still walk.

Sorry, I do not see how anyone could think that make a woman look more attractive.

[Geezer]

Sorry, I do not see how anyone could think that make a woman look more attractive.

Who said anything about making women look more attractive? Obviously, you are a sexist pig.

All I can say is "watch your ass", cos it's about to get reamed.

[CliffordK]

Are you sure?  Snopes disagrees:  http://www.snopes.com/horrors/vanities/ribs.asp

Then there's this: http://www.snopes.com/photos/people/smallwaist.asp
Due entirely to corsets, apparently.  It does appear that she can still walk.

Interesting.
I had wondered a bit about surgeries....  Although the procedure is possible now (as noted in my links above), but perhaps not very widespread. 

But, you are right, in a time when the best anaesthetics were Bourbon and Ether, it would be a traumatic surgery.

The comparison with amputations is good, although keeping in mind that amputations are often done in response to a traumatic event such as injury, or intractable infection, or now due to Diabetes.

Anyway...
I think the conclusion is that Barbie may have exaggerated proportions, but still within the realm of being possible.

Some dolls will have things like enlarged eyes, or exaggerated facial expressions that put them clearly outside of the realm of what would otherwise be normal.

[Jolly- Joliver]

Sorry, I do not see how anyone could think that make a woman look more attractive.

Who said anything about making women look more attractive? Obviously, you are a sexist pig.

All I can say is "watch your ass", cos it's about to get reamed.

Sorry but I was the first to criticise this thread as sexist. I don't agree with women wearing Corsit either really they are seriously bad for the internal organs. I doubt removing a rib is very good idea either. Hence I think women are more beautiful as God intended, hence my point hence I seriously do not know how you could accuse me of sexism.

It is often men that impose images on to women of how they should look, I say they should be themselves, what's more sexist? 

[Geezer]

Sorry but I was the first to criticise this thread as sexist. 

As we have come to expect, that's complete nonsense. You were the first to introduce any sexual connotations into the thread.

The original question was entirely anatomical. Go back and read it.

[Jolly- Joliver]

Sorry but I was the first to criticise this thread as sexist. 

As we have come to expect, that's complete nonsense. You were the first to introduce any sexual connotations into the thread.

The original question was entirely anatomical. Go back and read it.

Dis-agree, The very suggestion that a woman like Barie would have to crawl around on all fours is extremely sexist, I would say you were being sexist for ignoring that reality.
 
http://www.aish.com/ci/w/48967391.html
"In  my current environment, Barbie symbolizes everything that I, as a newly observant woman, rejected about Western culture. She is all body. There is nothing about her that even remotely suggests spirituality and internality. She is representative of a culture that objectifies women."

Feminists have been complaining about Barie for a long time, to then make a post saying she would have to crawl around on all fours, demines even more! Again who is being sexist here?

[Bored chemist]

To be fair to Wiybit, Barbie's shape is a sexual connotation.
The wisdom of expressing an opinion on the attractiveness of people could be debated but I'm not sure it strictly counts as sexual prejudice.
It would have been perfectly possible, and perhaps reasonable, for a woman to make the comment that Wiybit did, and, had they done so I doubt it would have been termed sexist.

If he had said something like " all women should have surgery to make them look prettier" then I think everybody here would have jumped on his head (and quite rightly too).
What he said (in his characteristically scrambled English) was that he thinks that the corsets and/ or surgery don't make women look better.
A pointless observation, perhaps ill considered, but hardly a dangerous view.

[Geezer]

Anyway, back to the original question. Leaving Barbie's shape and any potential sexual connotations out of it, her legs seem to be unusually long. Would this prevent her from walking upright? I don't see why it would.

I seem to remember cases where people have had sections of bone removed from their legs because they were unusually long, but they were quite capable of walking prior to the operation.

[rosy]

One of those fascinating conversations seems to have developed in which a whole lot of men discuss who is the least sexist. Always fun.

Firstly, I do think that people should occasionally get over themselves.

The question, could Barbie walk upright, is a perfectly reasonable one, the more so given that's been discussed by a range of people over the years... and given that her somewhat peculiar physique has been widely remarked on, mainly by feminists worried by the risk that small girls might be being encouraged, even accidentally, to regard the "Barbie figure" as something to aspire to. Throwing about accusations of sexism is rarely helpful, all it achieves is to raise the emotional temperature without affecting anyone's views of anything. There are exceptions to this rule, when an individual is expressing views that are actually objectionable, and there's nothing for it but to stand up and be counted as disagreeing, but this bandying of accusations is merely undignified. Even if I bought the idea that the original question were sexist, or the result of the underlying sexism of our society, or one of those things, which I don't, I would consider Wybit's original contribution to be intellectually lazy:

Umm sexist conotations to Barbie...

That was the whole comment. If you're going announce that someone's question or comment is, in your view, objectionable, it is generally considered good manners to explain your difficulty with it from the offset, because otherwise the result is a lot of talking at cross-purposes, a great deal of huffiness, and generally more heat than light. This applies especially to an internet forum such as this one, where contributors come from a range of countries and backgrounds and indeed do not all have the same native tongue and so the assumption of a set of cultural assumptions is frequently invalid (as especially in the use of certain gendered epithets, which carry very varied levels of insult - or indeed no particular insult at all - depending which side of the atlantic you're on..).

On the other hand, I do think that this was a more-or-less fair comment (notwithstanding the extraneous use of the word "sorry" at the beginning, which for reasons I have not entirely fathomed always makes me much less inclined to sympathise with the poster):

Sorry, I do not see how anyone could think that make a woman look more attractive.

No-one had explicitly raised the question of whether excessive corsetry/rib removal (or not)/other forms of mutilation for the purpose of forcing (usually) a woman's physique to conform to some (often impossible) ideal (foot binding, anyone?), was intended partly or wholly to assist that woman's chances of "catching" a man, but it is generally accepted, rightly or wrongly, that this is why it was done (and after all, when women couldn't do "men's" jobs, what other way had they to guarantee they'd be able to eat after their father retired/died than to have a husband and ideally sons by then). And I don't entirely see that a man being puzzled by the idea that these wierd practices would be considered "attractive" by anyone, male or female, is inherently sexist. Of course, it's always more complicated than that.. many modern women wear what I consider to be bizarre and deeply unattractive layers of foundation and other make-up, not to attract men but because they somehow, apparently, feel uncomfortable if their own skin is visible. And that, as far as I can tell, has much more to do with women's relationships with themselves and with other women than it does with men, even though the origins of the wearing of make-up to emphasise the appearance of the eyes and lips can be traced with some confidence to a the desire to enhance secondary sexual characteristics and attract male attention.  

On the other hand, I do rather find this remark, clearly made to defend against the charge of sexism, unpalateable (and I use that word advisedly).

Hence I think women are more beautiful as God intended, hence my point hence I seriously do not know how you could accuse me of sexism.

Because the notion of an appearing "as God intended" always strikes me as rather repressive. Who gets to say what any god or gods there might be out there may or may not have intended for anyone or anything? Speaking as someone who, appearing "as God intended", would look a bit like the girl in the picture here:
http://www.smiletrain.org/site/PageServer?pagename=mission  (Note that a cleft palate isn't just a cosmetic issue)
... there's no reason anyone has to stick with the cards they were dealt. Even if an unrepaired cleft palate didn't lead, as it does, to difficulties speaking, eating, and generally getting on with life, spending your whole life talking to people who are looking, not at you, but at the damn great hole in your face ain't going to be a whole lot of fun. There's no reason, either, to encourage society to project unrealistic "norms".

There are a whole lot of ways of looking at Barbie as a metaphor for what's wrong with our society. She's certainly got a very peculiar figure, the attempted attainment of which would be frighteningly unhealthy for most normal-shaped women... but kids aren't, for the most part, as naive as we adults tend to make out, and Barbie's plastic doll figure is much less likely to confuse their mental picture of the world than airbrushed (apparently "real") photos on billboards... after all, they also play with dolls with great big cartoon heads and anthropomorphic teddy-bears.

Up to a point, there is also a perfectly sensible reason for Barbie's tiny waist and feet. Most little girls (and it is mainly little girls who play with Barbie dolls) are not interested in what she looks like naked. She's a clothes horse. She exists to wear "Barbie goes riding" and "Barbie goes surfing" and "Barbie goes to the shops" outfits... and these are made from real fabrics. Because the reality of actual fabrics is that they are much stiffer on the short length scales of Barbie's scale than on the real lenght scales of you and me, her clothes stick out. The elasticated waistband of a pair of trousers is terribly thick and would look totally unrealistic on a "normal" shaped doll. There's a tradeoff going on there that isn't particularly related to the "sex appeal" of the doll herself.

Conversely, I was never a Barbie doll fan. Barbie always struck me as a terribly boring person. Was she supposed to be a grown-up? If so, what was her job? Where was teacher Barbie? Or banker Barbie? Or bus- or train-driver Barbie? Or nursing home manager Barbie? Or computer programming Barbie? Or dentist Barbie? Or dental receptionist Barbie? Or nurse Barbie? Or plastic surgeon Barbie? (Yeah, I had a slightly odd range of ideas of what jobs most grown-ups did, a middle class upbringing and a cleft palate will do that for a kid) And why did she do such boring things when not working? Where was adventure-playground Barbie in her tracksuit trousers and T-shirt? Dinghy sailing Barbie in her wetsuit? But then, after all, we're talking about a kids' toy here. The dressing up clothes available in the Early Learning Centre were no better, you could be a doctor, or a nurse, or a fireman, or one of a range of superheros. Basically, Barbie is a commercial proposition. Her outfits tend to allow her to do the things little girls (are thought, by the manufacturers and by their parents to) aspire to do.. shopping, driving, surfing, horse-riding, going-to-the-ball. I didn't (well, except the horse-riding). But those are what sells. Barbie is symptomatic of the fact that in lots of ways the world sucks... but it's her shape, mostly, that attracts the column inches.

[Jolly- Joliver]

One of those fascinating conversations seems to have developed in which a whole lot of men discuss who is the least sexist. Always fun.

Firstly, I do think that people should occasionally get over themselves.

The question, could Barbie walk upright, is a perfectly reasonable one, the more so given that's been discussed by a range of people over the years... and given that her somewhat peculiar physique has been widely remarked on, mainly by feminists worried by the risk that small girls might be being encouraged, even accidentally, to regard the "Barbie figure" as something to aspire to. Throwing about accusations of sexism is rarely helpful, all it achieves is to raise the emotional temperature without affecting anyone's views of anything. There are exceptions to this rule, when an individual is expressing views that are actually objectionable, and there's nothing for it but to stand up and be counted as disagreeing, but this bandying of accusations is merely undignified. Even if I bought the idea that the original question were sexist, or the result of the underlying sexism of our society, or one of those things, which I don't, I would consider Wybit's original contribution to be intellectually lazy:

Umm sexist conotations to Barbie...

That was the whole comment. If you're going announce that someone's question or comment is, in your view, objectionable, it is generally considered good manners to explain your difficulty with it from the offset,

Yes but at the same time, I atleast made statement to that end. I'd rather not go off on one, I just said that.

because otherwise the result is a lot of talking at cross-purposes, a great deal of huffiness, and generally more heat than light. This applies especially to an internet forum such as this one, where contributors come from a range of countries and backgrounds and indeed do not all have the same native tongue and so the assumption of a set of cultural assumptions is frequently invalid (as especially in the use of certain gendered epithets, which carry very varied levels of insult - or indeed no particular insult at all - depending which side of the atlantic you're on..).

On the other hand, I do think that this was a more-or-less fair comment (notwithstanding the extraneous use of the word "sorry" at the beginning, which for reasons I have not entirely fathomed always makes me much less inclined to sympathise with the poster):

Sorry, I do not see how anyone could think that make a woman look more attractive.

No-one had explicitly raised the question of whether excessive corsetry/rib removal (or not)/other forms of mutilation for the purpose of forcing (usually) a woman's physique to conform to some (often impossible) ideal (foot binding, anyone?), was intended partly or wholly to assist that woman's chances of "catching" a man, but it is generally accepted, rightly or wrongly, that this is why it was done (and after all, when women couldn't do "men's" jobs, what other way had they to guarantee they'd be able to eat after their father retired/died than to have a husband and ideally sons by then). And I don't entirely see that a man being puzzled by the idea that these wierd practices would be considered "attractive" by anyone, male or female, is inherently sexist. Of course, it's always more complicated than that.. many modern women wear what I consider to be bizarre and deeply unattractive layers of foundation and other make-up, not to attract men but because they somehow, apparently, feel uncomfortable if their own skin is visible. And that, as far as I can tell, has much more to do with women's relationships with themselves and with other women than it does with men, even though the origins of the wearing of make-up to emphasise the appearance of the eyes and lips can be traced with some confidence to a the desire to enhance secondary sexual characteristics and attract male attention.  

Agree completly.

On the other hand, I do rather find this remark, clearly made to defend against the charge of sexism, unpalateable (and I use that word advisedly).

Hence I think women are more beautiful as God intended, hence my point hence I seriously do not know how you could accuse me of sexism.

Because the notion of an appearing "as God intended" always strikes me as rather repressive. Who gets to say what any god or gods there might be out there may or may not have intended for anyone or anything? Speaking as someone who, appearing "as God intended", would look a bit like the girl in the picture here:
http://www.smiletrain.org/site/PageServer?pagename=mission  (Note that a cleft palate isn't just a cosmetic issue)
... there's no reason anyone has to stick with the cards they were dealt. Even if an unrepaired cleft palate didn't lead, as it does, to difficulties speaking, eating, and generally getting on with life, spending your whole life talking to people who are looking, not at you, but at the damn great hole in your face ain't going to be a whole lot of fun. There's no reason, either, to encourage society to project unrealistic "norms".

Not talking about unrealistic norms, not saying that a women if she wants to cannot do what she wants to, or what she feels she needs to, to feel comfortable within herself, and to a degree I would argue that a desire to change could be god given, the freedom to so certainly is, more of an issue for me of the impostion placed upon women by a given society in general, to be one way are another, I take issue with, as far as being natural or as "god intended" that is a personal thing for each woman, and a personal journey of dicovery- self discovery, it's a mental psyical and emotional exercise, not a statement of how a women is born she should stay, you mis-understand me there completely, if a women really wanted to wear a corsit or have a rib removed, I could happily except it, if it followed the vain I discribe, sadly I think often these things are done in responce to social pressures women shouldn't really have to put up with.

Add on..
At the same time looking at this today, I was very quick to judge this girl, I do not know her, and made a asumption that she had done that under social preseures or for others reasons, which isnt fair, if I learnt anything it's that beauty is everywhere, this sad idiot has to say sorry, which I do unreservedly- I have better eyes today, I hope if she ever read this or any other woman in the a similar position did, that they would forgive that fool of a boy for speaking from a postion of ignorance, and for talking as he did. I'm seriuosly sorry, and don't like myself too much at this moment, I'll take the lesson completely to heart, and pray I never forget.

There are a whole lot of ways of looking at Barbie as a metaphor for what's wrong with our society. She's certainly got a very peculiar figure, the attempted attainment of which would be frighteningly unhealthy for most normal-shaped women... but kids aren't, for the most part, as naive as we adults tend to make out, and Barbie's plastic doll figure is much less likely to confuse their mental picture of the world than airbrushed (apparently "real") photos on billboards... after all, they also play with dolls with great big cartoon heads and anthropomorphic teddy-bears.

Up to a point, there is also a perfectly sensible reason for Barbie's tiny waist and feet. Most little girls (and it is mainly little girls who play with Barbie dolls) are not interested in what she looks like naked. She's a clothes horse. She exists to wear "Barbie goes riding" and "Barbie goes surfing" and "Barbie goes to the shops" outfits... and these are made from real fabrics. Because the reality of actual fabrics is that they are much stiffer on the short length scales of Barbie's scale than on the real lenght scales of you and me, her clothes stick out. The elasticated waistband of a pair of trousers is terribly thick and would look totally unrealistic on a "normal" shaped doll. There's a tradeoff going on there that isn't particularly related to the "sex appeal" of the doll herself.

Conversely, I was never a Barbie doll fan. Barbie always struck me as a terribly boring person. Was she supposed to be a grown-up? If so, what was her job? Where was teacher Barbie? Or banker Barbie? Or bus- or train-driver Barbie? Or nursing home manager Barbie? Or computer programming Barbie? Or dentist Barbie? Or dental receptionist Barbie? Or nurse Barbie? Or plastic surgeon Barbie? (Yeah, I had a slightly odd range of ideas of what jobs most grown-ups did, a middle class upbringing and a cleft palate will do that for a kid) And why did she do such boring things when not working? Where was adventure-playground Barbie in her tracksuit trousers and T-shirt? Dinghy sailing Barbie in her wetsuit? But then, after all, we're talking about a kids' toy here. The dressing up clothes available in the Early Learning Centre were no better, you could be a doctor, or a nurse, or a fireman, or one of a range of superheros. Basically, Barbie is a commercial proposition. Her outfits tend to allow her to do the things little girls (are thought, by the manufacturers and by their parents to) aspire to do.. shopping, driving, surfing, horse-riding, going-to-the-ball. I didn't (well, except the horse-riding). But those are what sells. Barbie is symptomatic of the fact that in lots of ways the world sucks

I don't dis-agree.

Thankyou Rosy for what you said.

[Airthumbs]

Has anyone thought to incorporate the role of Ken in all this?  I think Ken is actually a plastic surgeon!! 

[Bored chemist]

Has anyone thought to incorporate the role of Ken in all this?  I think Ken is actually a plastic surgeon!! 

I think it's fair to say that you are at least half right.