is this the country club doll? no...this is the homeless doll.

I’m not kidding. The same people who brought you Rebecca Rubin,  Jewish doll by day, eco terrorist by night, are now introducing Gwen, the Homeless Doll.

Now, I’ve had my problems with the American Girl Dolls in the past. Mainly, I feel that in a lot of ways, though they may be trying to introduce young girls to the concept that, “hey, everybody is different” they are in many ways stereotyping diversity (“You’re Jewish? Do you come with candlesticks and your bubbie’s blanket, too?). But this new doll is just something else completely.

On the one hand, I think spreading awareness about homelessness is definitely a positive thing. We tend to think of the homeless as drug-addicted bums, but especially in this economy that’s not always the case (each year, 1.35 million children experience homelessness in the US – making up 50% of the homeless population over the course of the year). Which may be why this doll looks the way she does (i.e. she is somebody who could sit next to you in English class).

So maybe, just to give Mattel the benefit of the doubt, this was an attempt at social awareness and starting a dialogue about the state of homelessness in our country. But they didn’t do a very good job at it. Andrea Peyser described this doll pretty well in her article for the Post, writing:

In the history books that come with every American Girl doll…you learn that Gwen’s father walked out on the family. Her mother lost her job….Mother and daughter started bedding down in a car…For $95 — more than your average homeless person would dream of spending on a rather mediocre baby substitute — Gwen Thompson can be yours. A mixed message if ever there was one.

btw - what a strange slogan. wtf is an inner star and where am i following it? American Girl WHO RUNS YOU AND WHAT ARE THEY DOING?

I think that’s the thing that gets me the most – none of the $95 price tag is going towards helping the homeless in any way. That’s truly the element that makes this feel like exploitation to me rather than a lesson in social awareness.

Also – what makes a doll homeless? If we’re NOT relying on stereotypes here – which I assume we’re not because the point of his doll hypothetically is to raise awareness and prove that homeless people are just like you or me – what are we talking about here, how can this be developed any further? Clearly a homeless doll is a stereotype in and of itself.

This doll makes people feel uncomfortable – probably because it’s so far outside of the idealistic realm we like our dolls to represent (hello – barbie and body standards for one). We like our dolls to be pretty and perfect and have beautiful lives that almost never represent our own lives in any way. So here is a doll that represents something real (although how well she represents that something is pretty debatable), that could possibly teach a child a lesson (if used correctly as a teaching toy…and that’s a big if) rather than instill lessons of unhealthy body image.

If this didn’t feel like exploitation or a weird type of tokenism it could possibly be a good idea.

 

 

Kit, Josefina and Molly! YAY!

Remember American Girl Dolls? It used to be a huge thing to have one of those dolls. Every one had its own little story. Dolls with identities. There was Samantha, who was from the Victorian era, and Felicity, who lived during the American Revolution and plenty of others. 

These dolls were fun because they actually had substance- a story, something to teach us. Maybe the lessons weren’t really expansive (I didn’t actually know anything about my Samantha doll other than the Victorian era epithet) but I preferred introducing a doll in that way rather than with an, “isn’t she pretty?” And I like that a doll company thinks that way, too. At least in theory.

Well, on June 2^nd the first Jewish American Girl Doll, Rebecca Rubin, was introduced. Further proving that Mattel isn’t going to stop until they have a doll that represents all the girls in their targeted demographic. 

Rebecca Rubin: The Jewish Doll

And I mean, it’s cool that there’s a Jewish doll. I’m glad there is some type of outreach towards Jewish girls, trying to get them to be proud of their heritage. If being able to say “my doll is Jewish, too” helps young girls deal with the fact that their religion is a minority and often grossly misunderstood, then great. But I’m still not entirely sure what it means for a doll to be Jewish.

Rebecca Rubin is a Russian-Jewish immigrant girl who moves with her parents and beloved grandmother Bubbie, and tries to assimilate into American culture. She even comes with her own challah and Sabbath candles! Which is not necessarily stereotypical…I mean they sort of have to prove that the doll whose face was made from the same molding as the Latina doll really is Jewish.

Now I’m sure there was a lot of thought that went into this doll: focus groups, research and many revisions in order to make sure the doll would be sensitive and accurate to real, live Jews. And I think it’s great that maybe this doll, and the books that are written along with the dolls, will help girls who never would have thought about Judaism at such a young age find religious diversity as a reality.

But by stereotyping diversity, which we believe is the only way a six year old girl can digest the concept, are we actually doing kids a disservice? Sure they’ll know a little about Judaism now, (I can see it now: “You’re Jewish? Do you have a bubbie too?”)…but what does that really mean? And what are we saying about cultures, not just this Jewish doll, but the African American doll and the Native American Doll, by deducing complicated worlds into manageable sizes?

I’m all for diversity, and I understand YES these are dolls and YES they’re for little kids. But in promoting this diversity it seems that they’re just creating more shallow stereotypes. It’s cool to try to get across the message that we should celebrate our differences- but we shouldn’t minimize the differences that do exist.

Just for funsies- ABC news made an excellent observation: Rebecca Rubin is also an eco -terorrist. Which leads me to wonder…after “years of research” did they not google the name?