September 30, 2009
Via Wee Windy City, I'm seeing that American Girl, maker of insanely overpriced dolls for children (and creepy adult doll collectors) has added lovely young Gwen to their lineup.
Gwen is homeless. Apparently her character is living in a car. And yes, this is the same company who ropes its child army in with $100 dolls and an endless trove of similarly reasonably priced accessories. I just checked out the site - get your doll its tiny spread of plastic food - only $70! Perfect for your homeless doll.
I did fall victim as a child in the '80s. I was more or less obsessed with my Samantha doll (who was a spoiled Victorian brat and not homeless, thank you) and I remember the evil catalogs that were addressed to 8-year-old ME that were constantly arriving in the mail. 20 years later I find so much about this horrifying. So with all apologies in advance to any hypothetical future children: NEVER.
Maaaaybe with unemployment inching towards 10% it might be a little inappropriate to be marketing a homeless doll. Or maybe it's just the American way.
Comments
lawrence.com does not necessarily agree with comments posted below - responsibility lies with the relevant user alone. Read our full policy.
TroutPoutt (anonymous) says...
Ugh. How horriffic.
Ages ago, I temped for a similar (even more pricey) company. It was a daily struggle not to yell at the people who phoned up to stop wasting their money on all these creepy dolls.
September 30, 2009 at 9:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smerdyakov (anonymous) says...
Maybe with unemployment inching towards 10% American Girl was thinking this is the PERFECT time for marketing a homeless doll.
September 30, 2009 at 9:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jimmyjms (anonymous) says...
I hear you, and it does kind of suck. But whether you like it or not, the American Girl franchise has one thing going for it that offers at least a sliver of redemption: all of the dolls are based either in fact (this doll) or in history, and offer stories that are at least somewhat educational and definitely offer young girls figures ("role model" would be too strong) that are strong females overcoming adversity. So if the choice is a AG doll or Bratz, that's an easy choice. But your points are totally valid.
September 30, 2009 at 10:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
annemccracken (anonymous) says...
I had a Samantha Doll that I loved, but I read all the books for all six (at the time) dolls. So basically my parents paid $89 to encourage me to read. Not an awful deal.
September 30, 2009 at 11:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
alm77 (anonymous) says...
Okay, wait, wait, wait. As the mother of a 10 year old with three American Girl Dolls, (and tons of accessories, mostly from yard sales) I know a little something about these products and I know a lot about what they promote.
REMEMBER, every American Doll has a story. Most of which are very unpleasant and historically insightful. Each doll has lived through some tragedy in their life. The point is to say that everyone has their struggles and that on the inside most American girls are the same. These dolls and this company try to promote understanding and celebrate diversity.
So, let's start here:
Kaya - the Native American girl who grew up in the 1700's dealing with a culture where her future was planned for her and I believe the eventual overtaking of "settlers".
Addy - The original homeless girl as she was a slave who ran away with her mother via the Underground Railroad.
Nellie - I believe she is friend to Samantha, worked in a factory prior to child labor laws under horrendous conditions. She was also an orphan.
Molly - Grew up during the war in 1944. I actually watched this movie on a six hour drive to the funeral of a dear friend who was a soldier. Bawled my eyes out the entire time.
SO, to fault American Girl for making another doll in a realistic situation seems odd to me. I think the problem is that Gwen is our contemporary. I didn't see anyone saying that the proceeds from $95 Kaya should go to Haskell, or that the sales from $95 Addy to the NAACP. So, why should a company who has told the stories of history from the perspective of 9 year olds for over 30 years suddenly hand over their profits from raising awareness of homelessness?
If you actually read the story behind this doll, it's about how she deals with trying to not let people know her situation and it's also about how others find out anyway and accept her and help her. So if little Gwen opens the eyes of the girls of Lawrence's Westside (for example) then maybe it's not such a bad idea after all.
September 30, 2009 at 1:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dolores2175 (April Fleming) says...
It must be one of those things that switches in your head when you have kids... I just totally can't relate. Spending a hundred bucks on a doll is generally offputting to me, but the irony of that doll being homeless is just kinda.. ick.
It also isn't to say that there are way more heinous toys out there.. but I do remember walking past an American Girl store last year in Chicago and being amazed at the level of commerce buzzing in that place. It's a freaking pink gold mine.
September 30, 2009 at 4:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
alm77 (anonymous) says...
Yeah, I get it. But I will let you in on our family secret. I never buy my kids toys. They do chores, get an allowance and they buy their own toys. They generally get one toy for their birthday, BUT at Christmas, we try to go crazy. Instead of buying each kid the same number of items, we just try to spend the same amount on each one and if my daughter picks one doll for $100 of her allotment, while the boys pick 10 $10 items for their allotment, I don't see the difference. If anything, her one item is better for a number of reasons. It's better because it probably used up less energy (it's greener!) to make than what the boys pick out. It's better because it lasts longer. It's better because there won't be a million pieces littering her bedroom floor. That's one way to look at it.
I suppose the other way to look at it is that if we'd spent that $300 on Nothing But Nets, we'd have saved 30 African children from Malaria. But everyone could have done that with their Christmas money and saved the entire African continent (probably given them clean water as well). But we didn't.
September 30, 2009 at 4:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dolores2175 (April Fleming) says...
(&*^%$#@! this new computer for erasing my reply. Basically, I'm in no position to criticize the way anyone parents their kids..I'd like to be the kind of parent that has their kids earn their somewhat extravagant toys as you do.. I'm just in the convenient position to gross out at what I see as the crass commercialism of the this one in particular. And as much as I'd like to respect AG's intentions, I doubt they exist. These toys are serious moneymakers.
PS, boy do i LOVE Christmas, despite being the non-religious sort. I spoil my family as much as I can afford to come the holiday. And we're at a point now where it's my parents and just us adult kids. It's still fun.
October 1, 2009 at 12:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )