According to the National Center on Family Homelessness, one out of every 50 children in the US is homeless. And the American Girl doll company seems to be trying to take a stand on this issue…by providing a new homeless American Girl doll named Gwen for the exorbitant price of $95 (talk about irony). The doll, “Gwen,” has been quite controversial in the media lately. Whereas some see this as a positive step towards promoting tolerance during the economic downturn, others see it as really poor taste.
Let me point out that “Gwen” is not new news. She is a limited edition doll who has been around for quite a while. But, the media only seems to have picked up on the story quite recently. Gwen’s biography on her Wiki page reads:
Gwen and her mother Janine fell on hard times when her father lost his job; they later lost the house as they were unable to keep up payments. Soon after, Gwen’s father left them and they became homeless the fall before the start of the book’s events. Initially, Gwen’s mother has them live in their car until the winter comes; she then takes them to Sunrise House, a place for homeless women and children. Sunrise House helps them get on their feet and eventually get a new apartment.
Gwen is presented as a companion doll to Chrissa, the first “Girl of the Year” doll. Gwen is one of Chrissa’s friends, and Chrissa’s movie and books include scenes of her defending Gwen from school bullies. Sonali, Chrissa’s other “friend” companion doll is also available for purchase. Bitch Magazine asks:
Does the fact that homeless-shelter Gwen and “at least part South Asian” Sonali are sidekicks rather than Girl-of-the-Year themselves contribute to the other-ing and tokenizing of disenfranchised or non-white young girls? Or is it good that they’re getting the American Girl Doll treatment at all?
CBS sent a correspondent to an L.A. homeless shelter to get some reactions to the doll. One woman in the shelter claimed that the doll touched her heart, but was disturbed to discover that the doll was not actually being used to raise money to help the homeless. Others in the shelter found the creation of the doll in itself offensive. The American Girl company claims the doll “offers valuable lessons about life.” The company also notes that although no proceeds directly from the sale of Gwen dolls and related items go to help the homeless, the company has donated nearly $500,000 since 2006 to HomeAid, a national nonprofit group that seeks housing for homeless people.
Another concern about the doll is that instead of teaching tolerance, the doll is just promoting complacence. Some fear that the doll sends the message that homelessness is an acceptable aspect of society, and that it is perfectly okay to have some children be homeless while others are privileged (and buying $95 dolls).
Andrea Peyser at The New York Post is especially upset by the doll. She says:
What message is being sent with Gwen?
For starters, men are bad. Fathers abandon women without cause. She’s also telling me that women are helpless. And that children in this great country, where dolls sell for nearly 100 bucks a pop, are allowed to sleep in motor vehicles. But mothers don’t lose custody over this injustice. Because, you see, they are victims, too.
I am really very perturbed by Peyser’s implication that a woman should lose custody of her children if she is abandoned, loses her job, and is forced to be homeless. And Gwen’s mom in the stories is not actually “helpless” at all, but is struggling nobly with Gwen to make ends meet and to survive. There are women who are abandoned by their husbands (yes, Peyser, sometimes completely without “cause”), lose their jobs, and are thrown into poverty, and the fact that Peyser implies that these experiences are unheard-of is really ridiculous and offensive.
I can see where the company was trying to go with this doll, and I think as a child I would have really identified with this character, given my background. In some ways, it is really nice to see a doll acknowledge other family experiences and it might have been comforting as a child for me to see that there are other families who struggle, and other children abandoned. I remember having so many images of perfect families thrown at me that I really felt inadequate and abnormal in a lot of ways. A lot of criticisms of the doll have focused on preserving children’s innocence, arguing that this doll is inappropriate for children. But to assume that children live in a bubble is kind of ridiculous to me. The truth is, a lot of children are feeling the impacts of the economy firsthand. A lot of children struggle with family issues. These problems exist, and it seems irresponsible to act as if they do not.
But $95 is ridiculous. And perhaps, like Bitch Magazine points out, Sonali and Gwen aren’t quite being given their due. Do Gwen and Sonali’s position as “companion” dolls somehow make them seem “less-than” and other-ized? Why must Gwen be the quiet insecure girl who is bullied and called names, but is then so nobly defended by her savior, “Girl of the Year” Chrissa? Is “Gwen” actually a successful attempt at teaching children acceptance? Or is it just another marketing ploy to make big bucks by exploiting other peoples’ misfortune? Is the irony too much to bear?