AG's new "Gwen the homeless girl" doll ...

[luvsJack]

I can't believe all this controversy over Gwen! I am curious if people who think the doll is in poor taste have actually seen the movie or read the books. She's Chrissa's friend, and the fact that she lives in a shelter is no big deal to Chrissa. I never remember her living in a car. Honestly, the movie's message is about bullying, not homelessness.

If they hadn't made a Gwen doll, people would probably wonder why that hadn't made Chrissa's best friend.

Homelessness is a serious topic. The Gwen doll...not so much. If you don't like her, don't buy her.

I asked before and I will ask again: Does the story tell the truth about being homeless? Does it talk about the dirt and the fear and the cold? Or does it just make seem like "oh, well, Gwen lives in her car" like its some kind of new fangled house trailer?

If it brings attention to the true story of being homeless then maybe it does bring awareness. If it does the latter, then its only glamorizing being homeless and does an injustice.

If the message was about bullying, why make the child homeless?

 

[K and K's Mommy]

I asked before and I will ask again: Does the story tell the truth about being homeless? Does it talk about the dirt and the fear and the cold? Or does it just make seem like "oh, well, Gwen lives in her car" like its some kind of new fangled house trailer?

If it brings attention to the true story of being homeless then maybe it does bring awareness. If it does the latter, then its only glamorizing being homeless and does an injustice.

If the message was about bullying, why make the child homeless?

She doesn't live in a car. I don't know where that came from. She lives in a homeless shelter. The story is really about Chrissa being bullied by a mean girl. Chrissa becomes friends with Gwen and learns her secret. When the mean girl figures it out, Gwen thinks Chrissa told the bully. Of course, the truth comes out. Gwen and Chrissa remain friends and another girl becomes their friend when she too is able to stand up to the bully. I don't know why they made Gwen homeless. She didn't have any friends because she didn't want anyone learning her secret. Chrissa persisted in being nice to her and eventually they became friends.

There is a whole thing at the end about bullying. The homeless part is not the main idea of this story line. It is supposed to be an anti bullying message.

 

[NHdisneylover]

I was telling my family about this thread and article last night over dinner. Both kids (both have seen the movie and one has read the book) who shocked that anyone would harp on the homelessness issue like this. DD12 said the lady who wrote the article sounds like the type of person who tries to ban books she has never read because of messages she thinks are in them based on a line or two out of context. I think my DD hit the nail on the head with that one.
I can absolutely understand that if you had no familiarity with AG or this doll and the story she comes from and read the artical taht you would think the mattel is pretty terrible for putting her out there. That is certainly how the author presents it. However, as soon as I saw that plenty of otehr people who ARE familiar with the story are comming out to say this author is off base and even pointing out basic (easy to check) factual errors in the story, I would (at the very least) decided to reserve judgement unless or until I read the book or saw the movie myself. I ahev read articles in teh past which have gotten me pretty worked up over one issue or anohter and htne found out the authors are very biased and not presenting accurate information and changed my mind, done my own research or just decided it was an issue I did not know enough about to judge.
Like many other AG dolls, this one has a story which includes living though hardship and comming out allright in the end. Often a good friendship is very helpful along the way in the stories. In this particular case, one hardship (the main focus in on the hardship of being nullied) is being homeless in today's society. American Girl has a long standing reputation for having girls be like real girls in their activities. Unfortunately, no matter how much we wish otehrwise, at this point real girls are homeless--I think if anything is in bad tate it is not wanting that reality to be shown OR making that the focus of the doll when AG did not. If a little girl is homeless I hope we can all see beyond that and think if her as a GIRL and not a homeless girl. I think in teh Chrissa story that is what happens. In this outrage many are showing kids that the focus should be entirely on teh homelessness and not the person.
At the nd of the day no one in our house is interested in the dolls from the Chrissa story, so we will not be buying it. However, that decision has nothing to do with where the doll lives (shelter or otherwise).

 

[TinkPinkPoem]

I was telling my family about this thread and article last night over dinner. Both kids (both have seen the movie and one has read the book) who shocked that anyone would harp on the homelessness issue like this. DD12 said the lady who wrote the article sounds like the type of person who tries to ban books she has never read because of messages she thinks are in them based on a line or two out of context. I think my DD hit the nail on the head with that one.
I can absolutely understand that if you had no familiarity with AG or this doll and the story she comes from and read the artical taht you would think the mattel is pretty terrible for putting her out there. That is certainly how the author presents it. However, as soon as I saw that plenty of otehr people who ARE familiar with the story are comming out to say this author is off base and even pointing out basic (easy to check) factual errors in the story, I would (at the very least) decided to reserve judgement unless or until I read the book or saw the movie myself. I ahev read articles in teh past which have gotten me pretty worked up over one issue or anohter and htne found out the authors are very biased and not presenting accurate information and changed my mind, done my own research or just decided it was an issue I did not know enough about to judge.
Like many other AG dolls, this one has a story which includes living though hardship and comming out allright in the end. Often a good friendship is very helpful along the way in the stories. In this particular case, one hardship (the main focus in on the hardship of being nullied) is being homeless in today's society. American Girl has a long standing reputation for having girls be like real girls in their activities. Unfortunately, no matter how much we wish otehrwise, at this point real girls are homeless--I think if anything is in bad tate it is not wanting that reality to be shown OR making that the focus of the doll when AG did not. If a little girl is homeless I hope we can all see beyond that and think if her as a GIRL and not a homeless girl. I think in teh Chrissa story that is what happens. In this outrage many are showing kids that the focus should be entirely on teh homelessness and not the person.At the nd of the day no one in our house is interested in the dolls from the Chrissa story, so we will not be buying it. However, that decision has nothing to do with where the doll lives (shelter or otherwise).

I have to admit that I am not very familiar with the AG story, but it sure is ludicrous to sell a 90$ doll that is supposed to be homeless.

And yes, there are many many homeless girls out there, and I agree with you that when portrayed the focus should be both on their situation and themselves. I don't know why one thing has to go without the other.

A PP said she's no longer homeless in the end, do we get any insight to her struggle? It would be interesting if she had her own fully developed story.

 

[luvsJack]

One of the articles said that Gwen lived in a car with her mom. The link and, I think, ABC's site. That is where that came from.

You all keep saying "its not about being homeless, its about bullying" and then you say "it helps teach children about the homeless" . Which is it?

If it teaches children about being homeless, and the truth about being homeless, then the story must be about both. If it only teaches about bullying then it must only touch on the fact that the child is homeless and I ask again does it touch on the truth about being homeless or does it just say "oh, she lives in a shelter (car, whatever)" and passes it off like there is no problem.

I have no problem with children being taught to accept all other children regardless of where they live, in fact I would encourage it. But if you are going to have a homeless child in the story and that child is enough of the story that you now have a "homeless" doll, then there needs to be more that that. For those children to accept a real homeless child that may end up in their class they need to understand why Gwen comes to school some days and she is very, very hungry or why she may not have gotten to take a bath last night and is wearing the same clothes as yesterday and why they will see people bringing toys and clothes for her and her family. They need to understand why these things may happen and that they should accept her as she is and never, ever say anything about it that would hurt her feelings.

Additionally, I haven't seen the movie or read the book (and don't plan to as this is not something dd is interested in) but, from looking at the doll a child could certainly get the wrong idea. If they have seen the movie or read the book and know that this child/doll is supposed to be homeless; do they really thing that all homeless children are going to have shiny blond hair all fixed and a pretty white, no less, outfit on? Some may be fortunate enough to look like that, but not all of them will. Or maybe this look comes from after they move in with grandma or get a home or whatever happens?

I want the reality shown, but make it the true reality; not a fairy tale version we would like to imagine. Someone compared this story touching on homeless like GWTW touching on slavery. Do you really think the old south was any thing like GWTW, that was a fairy tale version of it. Let's don't make fairy tales out of the tragedies of some of our neighbors lives.

 

[NotUrsula]

Why is this so horrific? And Nellie was created well before Mattel bought out--yet no one complained. Why is that?

Perhaps because before the Mattel buyout it was much more about the books than the dolls. Back then they were much less heavily marketed, and honestly, were probably more often purchased by adults as collectors items than as toys for children to actually play with.

Also, I wouldn't call it horrific at all. Crass, perhaps.

Are we too afraid of homelessness that we can't have a fictional character be homeless (though she later becomes un-homeless).

I don't think that anyone (except maybe some over-the-top bloggers who want attention) objects to the mere existence of the character. What most people who are put off by this object to is the idea of making money off of sales of a doll representing that homeless character -- a doll that is really quite expensive; one that no child who actually *is* homeless would ever be likely to have and be able to play with.

Think about it. When have you ever seen an AG doll turn up in a Toys for Tots drive bin? I've worked with a lot of charity toy drives over the years, and I've never seen one donated; not even in an "adopt a family" context. If I'm able to buy $100 worth of toys for a charity drive, I'm going to buy less expensive toys so that I can buy more of them and provide for more children, and that is what almost all of us do, because we're practical. Anyone who has spent any time posting here would know
that around here, the idea of buying a $95 toy for a homeless child would be met with a mountain of derision, especially if that child were to actually ASK for it in a wish list. We expect poor people to be practical about how they allot their money, and practical about what they ask for, and we expect them to rein in their children's expectations in terms of expensive toys. The average middle-class American who actually saw a homeless child playing with a new $95 doll would probably draw some ugly conclusions about the reasons why the family is homeless, and people who give know that. They don't want to give something that is likely to be stolen from the child, nor do they want to give a "collectible" luxury that a parent is likely to take away to be sold for gas money.

The thing is, a big part of AG's marketing strategy is encouraging girls to identify with the characters. Originally, all of the characters were historical, so there was a certain amount of distance to the role play that was possible. Recently, however, Mattel has introduced characters that are contemporary, so there is an immediacy to the idea of "identification" that was not there before. Homeless people are not memories in America, like Nellie the indentured servant. These are people that we see on the streets every day, and in this economy, people that but for the grace of God, could be our own families.

We're knocking Mattel's judgement here--but do people honestly know full well the full story of each girl in AG's history to not realize that not every doll has a happy beginning?

Personally, I understand that full well, but as I said, there is a difference between a doll based on an historical character and one that is contemporary. My daughter is never going to go to school with an indentured servant, but she well might go to school with a homeless child.
"Nellie" is never going to wrap herself in a newspaper to stay warm and be confronted with her own image cast in vinyl.

To draw a parallel with the "hobo" Halloween costume issue -- no child today is going to dress as a "hobo" because they think hoboes are funny or because they fantasize about being a hobo. From the beginning, that costume (and gypsy costumes, which were also mentioned) have been chosen because they are cheap and easy to create. It requires no money and little effort: you dig in the attic and find an old suit of Grandpa's, and you dirty it up a bit to create a free costume. That is in no way comparable to having an adult comb through every attic, cedar closet and municipal dump in a 20 mile radius in order to create 200 child-sized hobo costumes and sell them at $95 a pop -- THAT would be crass. (If you're going to the trouble to make a saleable costume product out of recycled goods, it makes a lot more sense to make princesses and ballerinas out of old wedding outfits and prom dresses.)

To me it isn't about defending the company so much as realizing that people don't have all their facts straight which weakens your argument that AG is being socially irresponsible with the characters they create.

Personally I never said that the creation of the character was "socially irresponsible". Again, I have NO objection to the story or the existence of the character. What I said was that IMO it was in poor taste to market such a doll at this price point and not dedicate the proceeds to charity.

Some posters here have implied that I somehow had an agenda in linking that particular blog entry. I didn't. It was merely one of many published opinion pieces about the topic, but one that was safe to link here (because it did not bring up the topic of public funding for programs preventing homelessness, which I was concerned might violate the DIS prohibition on linking articles with a political bias). It is a BLOG, and therefore should not be expected to be restricted to the vetted facts. I was working from the assumption that readers here are smart enough to understand that.

Oh, and about the pregnant Barbie issue -- I was using the term "Barbie" generically, as most little girls do. It really didn't matter if the character was married or not, as the objection was to the idea of small children getting an education in the facts of life that their parents felt they were not ready to have, because women don't really have uteri with a pop-top lid!

 

[5lilfish]

If it teaches children about being homeless, and the truth about being homeless, then the story must be about both. If it only teaches about bullying then it must only touch on the fact that the child is homeless and I ask again does it touch on the truth about being homeless or does it just say "oh, she lives in a shelter (car, whatever)" and passes it off like there is no problem.

I have no problem with children being taught to accept all other children regardless of where they live, in fact I would encourage it. But if you are going to have a homeless child in the story and that child is enough of the story that you now have a "homeless" doll, then there needs to be more that that. For those children to accept a real homeless child that may end up in their class they need to understand why Gwen comes to school some days and she is very, very hungry or why she may not have gotten to take a bath last night and is wearing the same clothes as yesterday and why they will see people bringing toys and clothes for her and her family. They need to understand why these things may happen and that they should accept her as she is and never, ever say anything about it that would hurt her feelings.

Additionally, I haven't seen the movie or read the book (and don't plan to as this is not something dd is interested in) but, from looking at the doll a child could certainly get the wrong idea. If they have seen the movie or read the book and know that this child/doll is supposed to be homeless; do they really thing that all homeless children are going to have shiny blond hair all fixed and a pretty white, no less, outfit on? Some may be fortunate enough to look like that, but not all of them will. Or maybe this look comes from after they move in with grandma or get a home or whatever happens?
.

In the movie, Gwen and her mother live in a homeless shelter. Honestly, I cannot remember if they say exactly how/why they are there. the mother gives a speech, at a benefit for the shelter, saying how thankful she is for the sheter. She says that it was given them a place to live and allowed her daughter to continue attending school. Now, I would think that they could live ina shelter and be allowed to bathe, and eat (while not to the standards we are all lucky enough to enjoy), and probably have more than 1 outfit for the girl to go to school in.

Also, in the movie, Gwen's Mom ends up getting a job and an appartement. They move out of the shleter. The doll is not actually fashioned after a homeless girl because, in fact, Gwen is no longer homeless. If you go to AG site, Gwen is in no way advertised as a homeless girl. Part of her story (Chrissa's story, actually...as Gwen's story line is actually a sub-story and Gwen is being sold as Chrissa's friend) is that she had spent time in a homeless shelter.

The article is bad reporting. It would be nice if they took the time to get a few facts before trying to turn this into something that it is not.

Jess

 

[5 'LIL *TWINKERS*]

I have said my peace. I have also stated, more than once, that I was not familiar with the book/story and this was all JMO!

No matter what toy/story this was from, I, as a compassionate, caring, loving, mom of 5 compassionate, caring, loving kids....do not agree with buying a "homeless doll" for them. If you want to, GO AHEAD! I still believe its in bad taste but I will agree to disagree. Just was stating my opinion. And for the record, I am not a closeminded person.

 

[5 'LIL *TWINKERS*]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/26/earlyshow/saturday/main5343132.shtml


This is Gwen?

This doll looks like any other doll in a store. I would buy her if she wasn't so expensive I do not know her story though. If I did, I would not buy her unless her proceeds went to a homeless charity.

I agree with the homeless woman in this article.

I do see that they donate $ to a charity that helps find housing for homeless. Maybe this whole thing would go over better with people who feel like me, if Gwen's proceeds went straight to homeless shelters and it specifies that on the box.

Its such a touchy and tough subject....I can see both sides stepping back and looking at the whole picture. But it such a sad, sad subject, imagining a child in that situation and wanting to go a buy a doll portraying his/her struggles, kwim?

 

[Dancemom03]

EUREKA! After this thread and the downright shameful media coverage of this non-story, filled with errors and based on flawed facts, I have now figured out the complex decision-making of Mattel execs when it comes to retirements and "archiving" of future dolls.

My editor would never let error, assumption filled facts fly in print like certain others did - we're a responsible paper, dontcha know, and our readers deserve only the facts, so I'll contain my excitement and just post what I'd like to write here. Completely tongue in check of course...

Silly me! I thought it was all about how crass could they be while they decimated an American company well known for quality and education replacing classic time-proven historical favorite founding daughters with hippies and regular kids in search of skyrocketing profits.

Now I know though and can predict the future pattern of retirements/archivals so we can all make a little money off 'em before they go away. I'm guessing they'll follow this reasoning to change nearly thirty yyears of AG doll history...

1) Sam had to go to get rid of Nellie who lived in an orphanage and also made us acknowledge child labor - 'nuf said - she's gone!

2) Chrissa will go quietly, followed by Gwen and bully-turned-friend Sonali, as planned after Christmas. It should be noted though that this was a huge test run - the first time a LE doll had friends instead of clothes/access; also the first time a social subject like bullying was brought out of the doll closet, so to speak, and remedies offered; also the first time a dark skinned doll was offered as a GOTY. One has to think they're watching the numbers on those sales to see if this is something that'll fly in future...

3) Kirsten has to go. Now quit yer whinin'... Sure enough it was announced this week. Oh sure, Mattel always cites lowered sales for the classic dolls - Kirsten's one of the very first three historical characters ever created and a cornerstone of the old company image - but now we know... it's b/c she WAS HOMELESS TOO. In fact, she may even have been an illegal immigrant. Even if she wasn't, that long trek across the country living in a wagon train to build a shack out of nothing makes today's homeless families look blessed. We can't have that... why they had HOPE plus an intact family, and a determination to work, while living in their vehicle without a home.
Besides that, dummies sometimes make a mistake with her name and call Chrissa Kirsten or vice versa - nope we sure can't have that anymore....

4) I originally had Felicity up to go after Molly, but in thinking about Felicity's stories, there's no doubt in my mind that the red headed rebel has to go - and soon. Mattel talked about it years ago and the fans rallied, miraculously saving her from being the very first retired historical doll.
Sorry, guys, but she is just not politically desireable right now. In fact, that's another whole chapter of the nation's history we're trying to forget as we rewrite it. so... While I hate to sound predictable, I'm afraid next up is Felicity - though I'll admit I have to wonder about Kit too. I'm gonna choose Felicity though - maybe even before Molly - and you're not gonna believe why... Felicity, you see, is from a working family. Her dad's a shopkeeper - one of the very first capitalists! Her BFF is Elizabeth, a lovely child (DD8's favorite too!) who is, regrettably, from a wealthy family and has a knack for doing things right... boring huh? BUT WAIT... Felicity's other friend is running away from slavery and she's going to help him! Yup, folks, that makes him homeless AND beaten - homelessness, child abuse, & child labor/slavery all rolled into one with poor Ben. PLUS, throw in some animal cruelty in the story of Penny the horse, added to the fact that Felicity's family are Patriots. They share the tea party beliefs that made this country what it was - and that aint so popular these days in the media...

5) Now we belatedly come to Molly - the last of the original three. Whatever could be wrong with Molly, you wonder? Well, for starters, she glorifies war and self sacrifice. After all, her dad's away at war, while she and mom are keeping fires burning, and doing without, here on the homefront. Worse yet though, is her BFF Emily. Emily was homeless too, you see. She came from Europe during the war without her family, or even possessions, and moved in with Molly like she was some foster child, or they were running a homeless shelter for pete's sake! Molly didn't like the idea at all at first, heck she didn't like Emily either, but eventually things worked out and now it's time for them to put on their victory costumes and take to the stage for that last show - the final curtain so to speak...


6) Then there's Addy... Now Addy, I'm not sure about. Technically, she should go. Her story includes homelessness, slavery, abandonment (they left her father and baby brother behind when they left), prejudice, ect. Reading her story is both touching and heartbreaking - guaranteed to stay with you for a lifetime. I think, given today's current climate, Addy may buy a pass with those pennies her mom makes at the dress shop for a few more years, even though according to the numbers, her sales have been sagging more than her historical dollie sisters for a while now.

I could go on and on but you probably get the idea. The dolls are based on our nation's history. Unless we rewrite that history - and yes, I think we're trying - there are going to be some unpleasant realities encountered deep within their stories that might perhaps have the added benefit of teaching our children about our nation's history.

What's changed? We have! The historical dolls are being replaced with glitzier, more today girl types of dolls that have blander stories. One example of this is that AG has gone from a handful of "today" or "just like You" dolls to no less than 44 this month. Think about that... forty-four dolls you can spend $100+ for to be "just like you". They won't teach you anything, they don't have history, or books - unless you count ones that tell you how to style hair, clean rooms, make friends. There's nothing special about them - not even a name.

AND THAT dear readers, is what I find the saddest of all - that in our efforts to make everyone happy, we no longer care what our name is or where we come from...

 

[overlyspoiled4sure]

Loved reading your post dancemom03. You forgot to mention nudity...remember in Felicity & Elizabeth's (also Kaya's) time they didn't have underwear as we know today. So, the dolls came without underpanties!

I gave my DGD7 Elizabeth for her birthday. I figured at that age she wouldn't understand that part of history so I tossed in a pair of undies. My DIL said the first thing my DGD did was put the panties on Elizabeth!

I still don't "get" all the flap over Gwen. AG does lots for local charities & donate lots of dolls for the annual benefit sale for the Madison Children's Museum.

Even at my age, I enjoy reading the stories. I even like history more because of them. The "peek into the past" parts of the books are my favorites!

 

[5lilfish]

I have said my peace. I have also stated, more than once, that I was not familiar with the book/story and this was all JMO!

No matter what toy/story this was from, I, as a compassionate, caring, loving, mom of 5 compassionate, caring, loving kids....do not agree with buying a "homeless doll" for them. If you want to, GO AHEAD! I still believe its in bad taste but I will agree to disagree. Just was stating my opinion. And for the record, I am not a closeminded person.

She is NOT homeless. For a period of time, she lived in a homeless shelter. Her mom found a job and they got an apartment. In NO way is AG promoting Gwen as a homeless child. Which makes sense because she is not homeless.

Jess

PS...For what it is worth, I am also a compassionate, caring, loving mom of 5 compassionate, caring, loving kids.

 

[Dancemom03]

NUDITY??? Surely you jest? AHA - I totally forgot the nudity. We sure wouldn't want to send a message to girls that they shouldn't wear undies...
though actually...some of those thongs... whoops... I digress...

Really, I was just goofing off with it but wanted to show that, had a columnist wanted to - and had an editor who didn't care and/or excess column inches to fill on a slow day, anything could be made to sound horrible depending upon the slant it is presented with. Playing fast & loose with the facts (which I didn't do) helps a lot to stir up outrage too...

PS - I really did know about the lack of undies before and forgot, but you're right. It bothers girls. DD8 has added undies on her Felicity & Elizabeth too.

 

[overlyspoiled4sure]

Hmmmmmmmmm. My DGD7 is getting Kaya for Christmas. Do I dare put undies in for her too????

 

[Briarmom]

Hmmmmmmmmm. My DGD7 is getting Kaya for Christmas. Do I dare put undies in for her too????

I just went to look. Kaya does not have undies on. DD has had her for a few months and never said anything about it.
I wouldn't give her undies though. Kaya wouldn't have had them.

 

[NHdisneylover]

I have to admit that I am not very familiar with the AG story, but it sure is ludicrous to sell a 90$ doll that is supposed to be homeless.

Personally, I can see that it is ironic but not "ludicrous." I can fully understand saying it is ludicrous to spend so much on ANY one toy while at the same time there are homeless people right in your own neighbirhood who could be really helped with that money (but I am certainly guilty of spending that on gifts, taking WDW vacations, etc with my money--it doesn't all go to chairty by a long shot).

EUREKA! After this thread and the downright shameful media coverage of this non-story, filled with errors and based on flawed facts, I have now figured out the complex decision-making of Mattel execs when it comes to retirements and "archiving" of future dolls.

I could go on and on but you probably get the idea. The dolls are based on our nation's history. Unless we rewrite that history - and yes, I think we're trying - there are going to be some unpleasant realities encountered deep within their stories that might perhaps have the added benefit of teaching our children about our nation's history.

What's changed? We have! The historical dolls are being replaced with glitzier, more today girl types of dolls that have blander stories. One example of this is that AG has gone from a handful of "today" or "just like You" dolls to no less than 44 this month. Think about that... forty-four dolls you can spend $100+ for to be "just like you". They won't teach you anything, they don't have history, or books - unless you count ones that tell you how to style hair, clean rooms, make friends. There's nothing special about them - not even a name.

AND THAT dear readers, is what I find the saddest of all - that in our efforts to make everyone happy, we no longer care what our name is or where we come from...

I LOVE your post and want to say I have been so dissapointed in AG for the past few years because they are down playing the history and going for the glitz as you so eloquently point out.

Think about it. When have you ever seen an AG doll turn up in a Toys for Tots drive bin? I've worked with a lot of charity toy drives over the years, and I've never seen one donated; not even in an "adopt a family" context. If I'm able to buy $100 worth of toys for a charity drive, I'm going to buy less expensive toys so that I can buy more of them and provide for more children, and that is what almost all of us do, because we're practical. Anyone who has spent any time posting here would know
that around here, the idea of buying a $95 toy for a homeless child would be met with a mountain of derision, especially if that child were to actually ASK for it in a wish list. We expect poor people to be practical about how they allot their money, and practical about what they ask for, and we expect them to rein in their children's expectations in terms of expensive toys. The average middle-class American who actually saw a homeless child playing with a new $95 doll would probably draw some ugly conclusions about the reasons why the family is homeless, and people who give know that. They don't want to give something that is likely to be stolen from the child, nor do they want to give a "collectible" luxury that a parent is likely to take away to be sold for gas money.

The family DDs karate dojo adopted last year asked for iPHONES and iTUNES gift cards for BOTH of their teen boys. We all pulled resources and got them. They cost more than an AG doll by a long shot. The year before we had a family requesting a Wii and several games. Again, a lot more expensie than AG. I have seen MANY high dollar item requests. How sad to tell a child who likely spends much of the year hungry and not warm enough that s/he cannot even ask for what s/he REALLY wants because others will see that as greedy and not give it. I think it is FINE and even GOOD that you choose to buy many inexpensive things and help more children. Personally, we usually have one child we buy for and I buy for that child as I do for my own: meaning one item hat is really nice and maybe a few small things to go with it. Then, because I know that child likely does not receive basics like clothes and school supplies easily during the year I might supplement with a few outfits which are in popular styles, some school supplies, new toothbrush and toothpaste, etc. To ME (and I totally understand why this is not a thought process everyone would have and I am NOT trying to be judgemental) I feel like if I only buy cheap toys I am sending the message to a poor child that he or she is not worth spending "real" money on--or that Santa values her less than her classmates who "can" ask for a special doll, or what have you. I actually have over the years given away 3 American Girl dolls to charity(one Bitty Baby, one Kirsten and on Jess). I know many otehrs who have given them away as well. They are small (easy to transport if moving around frequently), durable and require no batteries or electricity. I think they are a great gift and have provided one both times we "adopted" chidlren who requested them (through a local organization) as well as once to a child in the Daisy troop I led whose mother was really struggling (mom knew it was me because I wanted to get the "right" thing but the girl thought it came from Santa).
I try to look at the cost of ANY toy I purchase as a cost per hour of play. In that way, a $100 toy which is played with for 1000 hours is cheaper than a $10 toy which gets played with for 50 hours. When looked at in this context, the least expensive toys at my home are: American Girl Dolls (2, plus a Bitty Baby ans Bitty Twins), Legos (including the ultra expensive Mind Storms set--make AG seem cheap), Playmobil, Snap Circuits and several board games. None of these are the "low priced" toys in the stores--but they last for years and hold my children's attention for years as well.

ETA: Kaya is one of DDs two dolls. I never noticed she does not have undies! Too funny!

 

[NotUrsula]

Personally, we usually have one child we buy for and I buy for that child as I do for my own: meaning one item that is really nice and maybe a few small things to go with it. Then, because I know that child likely does not receive basics like clothes and school supplies easily during the year I might supplement with a few outfits which are in popular styles, some school supplies, new toothbrush and toothpaste, etc. To ME (and I totally understand why this is not a thought process everyone would have and I am NOT trying to be judgemental) I feel like if I only buy cheap toys I am sending the message to a poor child that he or she is not worth spending "real" money on--or that Santa values her less than her classmates who "can" ask for a special doll, or what have you.

I'm not going to condemn you, either, but what I think you see as a huge difference between us really isn't much of one. I don't buy what I define as "cheap" toys for charity either -- I too use the same price range as I spend for my own children. I also buy quality things for my kids, but most of what I choose comes from Europe, and with the exception of Lego, is not generally priced as high as AG products. (DD owns one doll. It is a Corolle Calin, which is comparable in quality to the AG BB dolls, but considerably less expensive.)

I buy what I buy for our charity drives because I buy what the social workers tell us that the parents say that the kids want; which is mostly brands that they see heavily advertised on network television. A couple of years ago I bought a dozen Bratz dolls. I would not have allowed those in my own home because I had issues with the style, but it's not for me to impose that judgment on other parents. However, I do have a spending limit, and I have to stick to it, so I choose "wants" that fit within that limit. Still, if it were a homeless family we were discussing, I would probably not buy an AG doll (though they come in just below $100), because one thing the social workers always warn us against is purchasing marquee-brand items that have high resale value. Homeless kids almost never get to keep things like that, either because they quickly get stolen at the shelter or because their parents take them to be sold.

From your post I would guess that your definition of "real money" is a lot higher than mine when it comes to toy purchases. My holiday top spending limit for my children is $100 each, and I normally spend much less than that. If DS wants something more expensive, he must save for it and pay the difference himself. (DD isn't old enough yet to appreciate prices.)

 

[TinkPinkPoem]

Personally, I can see that it is ironic but not "ludicrous." I can fully understand saying it is ludicrous to spend so much on ANY one toy while at the same time there are homeless people right in your own neighbirhood who could be really helped with that money (but I am certainly guilty of spending that on gifts, taking WDW vacations, etc with my money--it doesn't all go to chairty by a long shot).

Yep, that was my point. In my first post in this thread I called it an oxymoron, a 90$ doll that is supposed to be homeless, but I agree with your description, I think that fits best.

 

[NHdisneylover]

I'm not going to condemn you, either, but what I think you see as a huge difference between us really isn't much of one.

Yes, I think overall we are pretty similar (right down to buying lots of European toys--really easy for me now that I live here; though they are often as expensive--DDs comparable Europen doll--which she saved for and pruchased herself--cost MORE than an AG doll). I actually do not have a set amount I spend on my kids for the holidays. It varies depending on what they are interested in, what I can find deals on and where we are financially in any given year. Often it is under $50 per child (yes, truly) but sometimes it is much more (the year DD got Kaya or the year DS got a trap drum set and the year they got Mindstorms to share). My kids do not get even close to all their wants and have never thoguht they could expect to receive everything on a letter to Santa or wish list (they do not even expect to get anything from it--it is simply an idea list). I guess what makes it "real" to me is that it is something the child truly wants and will value. Sometimes that is something that is cheap to begin with (hey, my own DS's all time favourite Christmas gift was a set of 8 smurfs with a mushroom house I picked up at a garage sale), other times it is something which is often expensive but I have found for a great sale (like the year I found the K'Nex roller coasters 90% off in January--I bought all 3 left and intionally looked for children askign for K'Nex the following year), sometime it is something that just plain costs a lot (AG doll). I guess I want to be able to give a child what s/he desires (as much as I am able) most regardless of price (especially if the child is not yet jaded into valueing pocessions based on cost).
The resale issue is an interesting point. I have heard that brought up at times and I am sure it is very real and very valid. I have been fortunate to work with smaller, local charties where they know the people they are helping and have been told each time that the parents really want to see the children happy and it is "safe" to buy them what they ask for if you can. I think a lot of that depends on where you are and who you are working with.

 

[Ppufi]

Here's just a statement AG has made; I believe you can find it on their site under Press Room.

"Since its inception in 1986, American Girl's historical and contemporary books have addressed a wide range of important social issues that have had a significant impact on the lives of girls and women. The contemporary 2009 Girl of the Year line, of which Gwen is a part, specifically addresses the issue of relational aggression or bullying, which has become a growing concern for girls and their parents today.

While our outreach in support of the line will continue to focus on preventing peer aggression, we are pleased to continue our ongoing partnership with HomeAid America and its mission to support the temporarily homeless. We will do so through a variety of fundraising initiatives, such as our ongoing commitment to Project Playhouse™, special fundraising events at American Girl retail stores, as well as direct grants. "