A while ago I read an article about the impossible dimensions of a life-sized Barbie. "If Barbie were an actual woman, she would be 5'9" tall, have a 39" bust, an 18" waist, 33" hips and a size 3 shoe. She likely would not menstruate... she'd have to walk on all fours due to her proportions." (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20055694-10391704.html)
I read this article today which shows what kind of plastic surgery model Katie Halchishick would need to look like Barbie.
Barbie is clearly not someone we want to aspire to.
In comparison, I've been thinking a lot recently about how the medical industry "textbooks" childbirth. For example, in a textbook labor, a woman dilates 1 cm per hour. If the hospital staff doesn't see this reflected in their patients, they push augmentation (Pitocin, mainly) to reach their desired contraction frequency and intensity (shown by a readout from the monitors recording every move). But, similar to Barbie, how many people follow this pattern? Not many (and in Barbie's case, none).
Just like the differences of every woman's visible bodies, we each have our own unique way to birth babies. We shouldn't be compared to the perfect textbook woman, because we're all different.
This quote from the article just about sums it up: just because our distorted image of how a body should be is medically attainable, that doesn’t mean it should be attained.
Let's face it, if Barbie can't menstruate, she wouldn't be having babies anyway - so why should we be comparing our progress to hers?
(I hope my analogy makes sense...this is why I didn't major in English!)
