While nobody will argue with the recognition of Mattel's Barbie Doll, one area which has raised its honest share of controversy more than the years is her figure.
A lot of mothers from all over the world have argued that Barbie's ultra-slim figure represents a ridiculous standard to get a body shape. They say that many children grow up considering that they must have the same figure as Barbie or there is something incorrect with them. While I do not get that radical of a stance, I will say that it would be really tough to measure as much as Barbie's criteria.
In the case that you and your family take the measurements of Barbie, she could be over 7 feet tall, weigh around 125 kilos, and also have a form of 32-20-42. Naturally, no lady could maintain a figure like that, but this is where the controversy stems.
In addition, Barbie features a pretty long neck. In reality, her neck is practically twice the size with the typical lady. Her feet are also an additional supply of criticism with various saying that Barbie's feet are only half the dimension of a typical womans as a result of foot binding. That's the practice of preventing your feet from growing by constricting them.
Some have went as far as stating the Barbie doll has triggered their children to become anorexic from trying to sustain Barbie's figure. I think that might be a little intense, but I may see each sides.
In recent years, Mattel has given in a little bit on this concern and widened Barbie's waist somewhat. This took place around the 12 months 2000. Barbie now has an a lot more proportioned waist.
No matter what Barbie's figure appears like, or who's right or wrong on this issue, the real winner within this debate is Mattel. The extra controversy and publicity only assists to fuel revenue. I wonder why none of us talks about Ken's figure?