var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
CompyPaq
September 29, 2009 1:07 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

I have an idea: Donate the $95 to a homeless shelter and don't buy the doll!

Reply
2 replies
","
\"user-pic\"
Excited_Utterance
September 29, 2009 1:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I suggest you do what your parents did, Gwen, and get a job! The bums lost!

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Hoss
September 29, 2009 4:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Excited_Utterance: Whose heartless parents are you speaking? Not mine. The comment is absolutely revolting. You don't have a clue who lives in shelters, particularly women's shelters (those are the ones with children similar to Gwen). Women who are battered, and have terrible stories of suffering live there -- trying to get life back in order after what is hopefully a short stay. Your thinking is exactly why a \"homeless\" doll is important; it starts a conversation and questions among children. I'm really sickened that you think women in shelters are bums.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Sanspants
September 29, 2009 4:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Excited_Utterance: Am I correct in remembering that as a Lebowski reference?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
oneandone
September 29, 2009 5:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Sanspants: I believe you are. That was my first thought.


/I can get you a toe by 3 this afternoon.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
linkura
September 29, 2009 1:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Excited_Utterance: You, sir/madam, are being followed for that comment.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
bayank
September 29, 2009 1:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

the Bums in philly think it's okay to be homeless, the same ones are always in the same place askin the same college kids for change. The guy by 7-11 on Cecil B Moore ave wearing the camo pants has earned the title bum-laden, for terrorizing our wallets!

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
treimel
September 29, 2009 2:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bayank:
That's not \"Texaco Tony\" is it? He was a Cecil B. Moore regular with camo, but that was years ago.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bayank
September 29, 2009 2:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@treimel: Thats funny, it might be the same guy cuz this dude's name is tony, and he has a long beard too

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Skankingmike
September 29, 2009 2:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bayank:

I used to harass the ones that were fake. Like the 20 something girl who looked clean everyday begging for \"part of a dollar\" I gave her that one time, who knew she wanted the whole dollar!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
burnedout
September 29, 2009 1:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm unclear about the concern that kids will get

\"the idea that it's okay to be homeless. Tanya Tull, president of Beyond Shelter, told CBS that she's \"afraid that [girls are] going to pick up the idea that it's OK, that it's an accepted segment of society that some children are homeless and some children are not.\"\"

First, as the article points out there are many kids who ARE homeless and trying to attend school. If a doll helps lessen the stigma among their peers and makes it easier for the affected kids to keep their chins up while their families are in crisis (maybe if the doll's story helps them feel less alone), then I don't see that as a bad thing. It could help the homeless kids keep some friends and some grades, and yeah it SHOULD be \"an accepted segment of society.\" Why further marginalize CHILDREN?

Second, I don't think ANYONE would *grow up* convinced that homelessness is cool. By that I mean that if the doll helps them through it as kids I sincerely doubt they'd grow up, become adults, and wish they could go back to their homeless days. But a doll as a coping device could be a good thing.

That said, $95 is RIDICULOUS, and the fact that AG isn't donating even a percentage to homeless causes is offensive and exploitative.

Doll=interesting in concept, DUMB in execution.

Reply
9 replies
\"user-pic\"
DangerMouth
September 29, 2009 5:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@burnedout: I'm thinking that the idea of 'normalizing' homelesness is what the concern is. That it should be outrageous (that is, should produce outrage) to think of a child on the street, and not be something that we shrugg and accept.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
CyGuy
September 29, 2009 4:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@burnedout: In the Chrissa movie, Chrissa and her family are volunteering at a shelter and she sees her friend Gwen from school whom she realizes is one of the residents of the shelter. Somehow Gwen's status gets out and she gets teased at school, this turns into a lesson about bullying and eventually Chrissa's family hosts a party to make crafts to raise money for the homeless shelter getting all the bullying popular girls to attend.

I found the movie's moral pretty uplifting. I can't recall, but I think Gwen does find a home at the end which is probably not the case often enough in the real world, but seeing the movie, and/or getting the Chrissa doll and her books, will enlighten thousands of well-off kids that they have a duty to give back to the less well off. Should they maybe go farther and try to convince these girls that being rich in society where poverty exists is evil - perhaps, but I don't think that a lot of parents would end up getting the products then.

All of the AG stories that I know of deal significantly with these issues, including Kitt as mentioned above, who at one point sees her own father in a soup line during the Depression. (If you are going to watch any of the AG movies, watch Kitt as it is the only one produced with a full Hollywood cast, Joan Cusack is one of the major characters.)

As to their charitable activities, I'll let AG speak for itself - could some of their charity be more directly targeted at poverty programs, in my opinion yes, but others may disagree: [www.americangirl.com]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
squinko
September 29, 2009 2:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@burnedout: \"Second, I don't think ANYONE would *grow up* convinced that homelessness is cool.\"

Please explain hipsters.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
calquist
September 29, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@squinko: Agreed. Growing up, I was basically taught that they only want money for drugs and blow. If anything, it might make the next generation a bit more understanding of the issue.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
squinko
September 29, 2009 6:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@calquist: I think we need a hipster American Girl doll.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Rachacha
September 29, 2009 2:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@burnedout: Many of the American Girl characters are not what one would consider as being \"Well Off\". Kit Kitridge, the lead character in the AG movie that was out last summer as I recall was not very well off, and spent most of her time hanging out with Hobos and minorities (the movie took place during a time when segregation/slavery were still the norm).


In the end, this is much uproar over nothing. My daughter is a fan of American Girl because it is a store that caters to young children and makes them feel extremely special in some way. She does not really care about the background story, she just enjoys playing with her doll (a just like me doll). The background stories are really for the adult collectors who think of the doll as (or treat the doll like) a real person (go to the AG site and look at the reviews for the Chrissa doll and you will see what I mean).


I have no personal knowledge about this doll's back story, but based on the brief information on the AG site, it sounds as if Gwenn was the new kid in school and found a good friend in Chrissa, even though Chrissa is poor/homeless. The life lesson is to look beyond the surface and get to know the person on the inside which is a lesson that I try to teach to my kids every day. They will often come home from school saying that a new kid joined their class and (s)he is different in some way (shy, dresses differently, looks different, has a funny name etc.). I encourage and challenge my kids to go to talk to that person the next day and invite that person into his/her group of friends or to talk to/play with that new classmate, or introduce them to other classmates. Sometimes, the person has completely different interests, and a close friendship never develops, but other times, a close bond is formed and they become very close friends.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
utensil42
September 29, 2009 2:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@burnedout: We were homeless for a little while when I was a kid, and yes, it would have been nice for my school mates to have had a little more understanding and compassion for that.

However, I think the fear or concern addressed by Ms. Tull is not that this will make children more compassionate to their homeless peers (a good thing!) but that it will make homeless in children seem like no big deal rather than something that should be worked toward eliminating.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
NatalieErin
September 29, 2009 2:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@burnedout:Not that it should be dressed in patched rags, or anything, but something tells me the average homeless child is not wearing a pure white sundress.


Hey, maybe kids could learn compassion from, I don't know, helping actual homeless people? There are soup kitchens and shelters and churches that need volunteers, donations, fundraising, etc, etc, etc. What a thought. Some of said organizations even help homeless families specifically, so the kids can learn about homeless kids, or whatever the point of this doll is.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
September 29, 2009 1:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@burnedout: If I were a homeless kid in school, I don't think I would be comforted if someone had learned about being compassionate toward the homeless through a $95 doll.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sponica
September 29, 2009 1:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: yeah they should learn compassion from sesame street. or you know parents. speaking as someone who would be homeless if i didn't have parents willing to let me live at home while unemployed

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
September 29, 2009 1:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The American Girl dolls are such a rip off, IMO. My judgment is clouded by the fact that I hate dolls, find them creepy, was pressured to conform to the gender norm as a child and play with dolls, and did I mention - I find them creepy.


This doll is just in poor taste. First, there's no life lesson. The doll's \"story\" is that she's homeless. Why not make it actually helpful and use it to teach children who read the story that some people are homeless, but many are trying to work toward better things and that people who aren't homeless (like the kids who own the doll)can help them by donating money to charities.

Reply
11 replies
\"user-pic\"
Omir The Storyteller
September 29, 2009 5:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

From what I can tell pretty much every main American Girl character has a friend who is, shall we say, not as well off as she is. Kit Kitteridge had her friend the hobo (essentially a homeless kid); Samantha had three Irish orphans, one coincidentally just her age; and on and on. The homeless girl doll sounds like one of those secondary characters. (Disclaimer: I can't tell from the article whether Gwen is a main character or a sidekick.)


That said, $95 for a homeless doll seems like one of those \"What were they thinking\" moments.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
September 29, 2009 6:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Omir The Storyteller: Gwen's a sidekick, I think. I don't see any mention of her anywhere else on the AG site aside from her own page.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Laines
September 29, 2009 1:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: If you read the story with the doll, that is exactly the lesson it tells (people become homeless for many reasons, they work hard to make it better, not all are lazy or criminal). I can't believe that Mattel was stupid enough not to donate any proceeds from the sales to aid shelters and such. Have they always been this cold in their PR efforts?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
inadequatewife
September 29, 2009 1:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: What's really creepy is that you can buy American Girl dolls that look just like you! You can customize your doll with hair color, length, style, eye color, and skin tone. And you can even buy matching clothes in real-people sizes (maybe just kid sizes, but still creepy).

Somehow my daughter got on the AG mailing list when she was little and the catalogs hit the recycle bin immediately. There were so many better ways to spend that kind of money and my daughter wasn't really fond of dolls anyhow - actually I'm not sure she owned any...crap, now she'll grow up disfunctional with no empathy for others...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)
September 29, 2009 1:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: I can't believe I'm about to defend dolls, but:

The American Girl dolls are VERY well-made, meant to stand up to years of use from hard-playing children. And they do. And they're FIXABLE if they get beat on, which is unusual these days. They're expensive, but considering how long they last and how much play most doll-liking children get out of them, I don't think it's a rip-off.

I teach a sewing class for little girls (and boys, but I've never had a boy) where they learn the basics of making clothes by making them for their American Girl dolls (and which is one of the traditional way American girls did learn to sew -- in miniature, for dolls, with scraps of fabric). The parents are grateful because those accessories ARE expensive, and now that sewing is trendy, some of those girls do get really very good at whipping up little outfits. And most of the girls who own the dolls have actually learned quite a bit of history from the books.

All that said, I get the IDEA of the homeless doll? But still tacky. And profits should be donated, to make it at least marginally less tacky.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
calquist
September 29, 2009 4:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): They are definitely well made. I still have my 2 dolls from when I was little and they are boxed up with their accessories ready for whenever I have kids to play with them.

I'm not totally sure if I see the beef of the homeless doll. It represents a demographic and even if homeless girls can't afford the doll (not a lot of kids in any situation can afford these), they can still read about the girl in the books at the library. I haven't personally read the stories, but it seems like the character is tastefully done. Other doll brands wouldn't be able to pull if off because they don't include background stories. They couldn't make Homeless Barbie. A girl could pretend that any doll is homeless, but I think it would be positive for girls to read about a strong girl in the same situation because they don't really have anyone to totally relate to on TV.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
KittensRCute!
September 29, 2009 3:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!):

NOT TRUE: the Pre-Mattel dolls WERE well made. but since mattel bought the company they are made with and the same as barbies. you can tell if you have a pre-mattel Pleasant Company doll because it says \"Made in GERMANY\". if you have a mattel american girl doll it says \"Made in china\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
queenofdenial
September 30, 2009 4:49 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@KittensRCute!: Actually Pleasant Rowland outsourced the manufacture of the dolls to China well before she sold to Mattel. But their quality did deteriorate quickly once Mattel took over.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
katstermonster
September 29, 2009 2:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): I have to agree with you. Those dolls can take abuse, they're easily cleaned, and AG has a great repair program. The accessories are insane and overpriced, but I got a had fun making clothes and whatnot for my doll, and hunting down stuff in miniature for much cheaper.


@pecan 3.14159265: As far as gender norms go, I made beds for my Barbie in the back of my Tonka truck. My mom has some great pictures, she got a kick out of it.


@inadequatewife: Yeah, it's a little creepy. I'm caucasian with light brown hair and green eyes, and I got an Asian AG doll. I thought she was prettier. Heh.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
September 29, 2009 2:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@katstermonster: My stuffed animals were featured guests on my cooking show. They loved the Scrabble tile and monopoly house pie I made.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
squinko
September 29, 2009 3:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: Sounds tasty. ;) I had a Littlest Pet Shop staffed with ST:TNG action figures.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sponica
September 29, 2009 3:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@squinko: did the pet shop sell tribbles? and if so, did it have the proper permits?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
squinko
September 29, 2009 3:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sponica (now with MORE caffeine), @pecan 3.14159265: The Littlest Pet Shop didn't have tribbles. :( I also didn't have that many TNG characters; the ones I remember having off the top of my head are Dr. Crusher and Q. Ripley also filled in at the shop from time to time.

I even had a TNG teleporter (still do!) that I would put my hamsters in.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sponica
September 29, 2009 1:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): but can you take their heads off and run them over with a tonka truck? mom didn't care that we did this to barbie (seeing as barbie is more affordable). i'm sure mom would kill us if we took off an AG's head and tried to run them over with a tonka truck.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
calquist
September 29, 2009 4:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sponica (now with MORE caffeine): If you did, you could send them to the doll hospital for repair and they came back with a gown and a balloon!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sponica
September 29, 2009 6:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@calquist: like my vermont teddy bear. not that he's ever met any foul play. he's also naked. i got him as a gift but i've never been able to afford clothing (or i forget to buy him clothing), but i still have his bear ambulance box in the event he needs to go to the bear hospital

Reply
\"user-pic\"
utensil42
September 29, 2009 2:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sponica (now with MORE caffeine): I know we're talking about American Girl dolls, but I keep seeing \"AG\" and thinking \"Attorney Genera.\" Which made your comment about taking off its head and running it over with a Tonka truck both hilarious and disturbing.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sponica
September 29, 2009 3:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@utensil42: as long as secret service doesn't think the same way....or the FBI.

just too lazy to write out American Girl

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
September 29, 2009 1:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): I have no doubt that they're well made, and that there are girls who really love dolls.


But I hate all dolls. All of them. They are all demon spawn, culled from the fiery ashes of hell dimensions which must not be named for fear of doll armies rising up in vengeance.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
craptastico
September 29, 2009 2:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: the movie Child's Play had a very strong impact on you didn't it?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
September 29, 2009 3:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@craptastico: I don't think I saw Child's Play until I was much older. I've always hated dolls. Barbie was different, and I only had two or three Barbies and one knock-off. But dolls, I couldn't stand. I've never even owned a doll, I disliked them so much.


@squinko: I second sponica's question and raise you another one. If someone purchased a pet, did Picard say, \"make it so\" to Data as he rang up the purchase?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
burnedout
September 29, 2009 1:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: Exactly.

And I'm with you on the creepiness of dolls - my grandma kept buying me porcelain dolls (the kind that blinked) and I HATED how they'd just stare at me every time I was in my room. AAAK

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
wrjohnston19283
September 29, 2009 1:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The photo is too small. It should be enlarged more.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Marc Perton
September 29, 2009 1:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wrjohnston19283: It's a bug in our publishing system; sometimes thumbnails get blown up, rather than replaced by full-size images. Working to fix.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Slave For Turtles
September 29, 2009 1:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

When I was a kid, I figured every doll and stuff animal in stores were homeless. The Rudolph show with the the Island of Misfit Toys certainly didn't help.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
The Porkchop Express
September 29, 2009 1:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Slave For Turtles: Yeah, I thought you \"adopted\" half those dolls. I know I \"adopted\" those Pound Puppies.


Too bad they got run over by the TONKA dump truck and Dr. Doom had to put them down :(

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sponica
September 29, 2009 2:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@The Porkchop Express: i miss those tonka dump trucks. god's gift to children with destructive energies

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ExtraCelestial
September 29, 2009 2:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@The Porkchop Express: And Cabbage Patch kids! They were a little before my time, but my sister had a million of them.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Rachacha
September 29, 2009 2:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TinkishDelight: Slightly off topic, but I wonder how many Cabbage Patch Kids Octo-Mom had when she was growing up? Perhaps her mom could not get her one and it scarred her for life, so she decided to make her own Cabbage Patch Kids herself at home.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
September 29, 2009 4:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Rachacha: I also hated Cabbage Patch kids. Basically, anything with a human face and relative human sized was not allowed in my room. The only things with faces allowed were stuffed animals, action figures, Barbies only.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Slave For Turtles
September 29, 2009 1:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Slave For Turtles: Er, \"every doll and stuffed animal... was homeless.\"

Sorry, need more coffee.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
craptastico
September 29, 2009 1:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

my nieces play with these, and the homeless doll is really not that big of a deal when you consider there's actually a freed slave doll. i'm not making this up, one of the dolls' story is that they were a slave. i understand teaching awareness of important issues to kids, but i think that's a bit deep for a children's toy.

Reply
8 replies
\"user-pic\"
Xay
September 29, 2009 2:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@craptastico: What's the problem with Addie? Most kids have already heard about Harriet Tubman during Black History Month - why not have a freed slave doll?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
craptastico
September 29, 2009 2:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@xay: there's nothing wrong with it per se, and i understand the importance of confronting things we'd rather not talk about, it's just...damn, like i said that's pretty deep for a children's toy.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
NatalieErin
September 29, 2009 2:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@craptastico: The \"freed slave doll\" (Cassie, maybe? She was created just as I was aging out of American Girl books) is actually a run away slave. Unlike this homeless doll, she had a full set of books. In fact, I believe nearly one entire book focuses on the girl and her mother escaping slavery and hiding in New York City. They are also trying to find other members of their family. It's remarkably historically accurate and dark for books geared to pre-teens.


I don't know how the doll lines have changed, but they used to actually be kind of neat. Each doll was a fictional person from some historical era - there was a Revolutionary era girl, a Victorian era wealthy girl, a girl growing up during WWII, a Swedish immigrant living in rural Minnesota, and the aforementioned runaway slave and her family. I think they've added more since I aged out of the target market. Each doll had a 6 book series about her life, which covered one full year, I think, and included a lot of historical reference.


The homeless doll, on the other hand, isn't a fully developed character. She doesn't have a set of books or a fleshed out story line. She's just a supporting character in another doll's book series.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
KittensRCute!
September 29, 2009 5:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@NatalieErin:

exactly.
plus i do think there is a difference between THE runaway slave as a main character and a token homeless girl. just saying.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Alys Brangwin can't stop the beat
September 29, 2009 2:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@NatalieErin: Her name was Addie and they went to Philadelphia. I remember learning that it was the \"City of Brotherly Love\" from that book.

And Kirsten's best friend died of cholera on their trip across the MS river. Molly had a victory garden. Samantha learned what it was like to be poor from her friend Nellie. Felicity helped set a horse free from an abusive owner.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
FaustianSlip
September 29, 2009 7:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Alys Brangwin can't stop the beat: And Samantha's aunt was a suffragette, wasn't she?

I don't see the hate for the books- I adored them when I was a kid, and while I haven't read them in years, they were definitely educational and fostered an interest in history that's continued to this day. There's nothing at all wrong with that. Also, each book had a small section in the back, after the story, that talked about the historical nature of some of the subjects in the book (women and the vote, escaping from slavery, child labor, whatever).

This may have changed since Mattel took over the company, but those books were fantastic when I was a kid. I totally wanted one of the dolls, too, but they were too expensive, so I never ended up getting one.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
KittensRCute!
September 29, 2009 5:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Alys Brangwin can't stop the beat:

good point. i still have the books from when i was little, i think i will go back and read them.

you know there is nothing wrong with fully addressing issues and helping kids to understand the complexities (and in some cases, unfairness) of life, i think the issue i take is the tokenism, the fact that none of the money is going to charity, the focus on consumerism and the lack of real substance like the other books had.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
NatalieErin
September 29, 2009 3:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Alys Brangwin can't stop the beat: Ah, thank you for refreshing my memory. I got the sound of her name right, kind of...


I distinctly remember the Molly books gave a lot of time to Molly's fear that her dad would die in the war, as well. Completely forgot about the cholera in the Kristen series. Didn't her house burn down, as well?


Now that I think about it, those books were pretty serious.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
oneandone
September 29, 2009 6:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@NatalieErin: I vaguely remember those books (which I read before they had the dolls associated with them. I'm so old!). Your description reminds me of a lot of the Little House on the Prairie books, which were an incredible part of my childhood.


Terrible series on tv, but wonderful books. Nothing sappy, and a lot of good life lessons (especially about relationships between sisters). And good history. The Little House series + Little Women should be on every young adult's reading list.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
September 29, 2009 6:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@oneandone: The books came out with the dolls from the start--they were never unassociated with merchandise. And, frankly, as books they were pretty pedestrian, and there was a lot of terrific historical fiction for kids around, as you note. So I'm not inclined to consider the pre-Mattel incarnation particularly uplifted by their creation of the books.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Brunette Bookworm
September 29, 2009 1:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@craptastico: But that was always the point of the American Girl books, to teach kids, mainly girls, about history by telling stories about people. The Samantha books featured Nellie, who had worked in a factory.


The age the books and dolls are geared towards are an age when kids are in school and already learning history, why try to gloss over it?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ExtraCelestial
September 29, 2009 2:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Red-headed bookworm: Exactly. They even refer to them as historical characters. In the books they illustrated what life was like for a young girl in whatever particular time period. It wasn't until more recently that they started branching into more modern and general dolls.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
diasdiem
September 29, 2009 1:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@craptastico: Could be worse. They could have a Holocaust survivor doll.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
diasdiem
September 29, 2009 1:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

New from Mattel: Baglady Barbie. Complete with pink Dream Shopping Cart!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
LuvJones
September 29, 2009 1:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

My daughter is 7 and the only dolls she gets are from her grandmother. I agree with the poster when who said that dolls are pushed onto little girls. We got an american girl catalog and I promptly called the company and had our names removed from the mailing list. $100 for a doll...really? I don't care how well it's made, it's not coming into my home. I think the homeless doll is in very poor taste. It has no substance, no REAL teaching or lesson. Just a way for the company to make even more money for a overpriced item.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
calquist
September 29, 2009 4:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LuvJones: It has no substance, no REAL teaching or lesson? What about learning to accept people for who they are, not what they have?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
September 29, 2009 5:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@calquist: A lesson that's taught by having the objects AG sells, and by selling a homeless doll as an accessory? Kind of undercut, I think.

I'm not an AG hater, but I think that they do some fascinatingly weird things in the name of rendering history and culture palatable enough to be marketable, and I sometimes think I'd have fewer qualms if they dispensed with the earnest educational rationalization and just candidly sold stuff. However they may characterize the girl the doll's modeled on, she ends up as a high-budget kid with tons of fancy stuff once she hits the marketplace. And the cookbooks! Apparently the food budgets were conveniently unlimited, even for Addy.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
ExtraCelestial
September 29, 2009 2:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I loved my American Girl doll when I was younger. As someone that is pretty much \"a quarter everything\" and it very much shows it was really validating to have the Girl of Today dolls that I could customize to look like me. Growing up dolls were either at one end of the spectrum or the other. AG was one of the first to market to every ethnicity.


I don't really feel so awful about this. I vaguely remember Samantha's poor, orphaned friend Nelly becoming a doll. She was a firecracker in the books and it is understandable that little girls would want to idolize her regardless of her socio-economic background. I'm not familiar with this story, but it's possible that she also has a great personality that would make her suitable for dollship. I do agree that it would be in better taste and a great learning/helping opportunity if a portion of the proceeds went to a homeless fund.


Also I'm loving the snark in the article. Bravo Marc Perton.


And extra also- the dolls were $95 when I got mine back in the early '90s. Yeah, it's expensive but I give them snaps for not bowing down to false inflation. They're heirlooms. I still have all of my furniture and clothing is perfect condition. I can't say the same about the rest of my toys from that period.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
squinko
September 29, 2009 3:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TinkishDelight: \"Also I'm loving the snark in the article. Bravo Marc Perton.\"

I'm enjoying Marc's contributions to this site. I love the snark and sarcasm.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sponica
September 29, 2009 2:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TinkishDelight: my ninja turtles and ghostbusters would still be alive....if mom hadn't sold them at the yard sale. barbie would still be alive...but she got decapitated in a tragic Tonka dump truck accident.

i didn't even know they HAD american girl dolls in the early 90s. i only heard about them when my cousins became obsessed with them in the past couple years.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ExtraCelestial
September 29, 2009 3:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sponica (now with MORE caffeine): Oh yes back when it was owned by Pleasant Company. Unfortunately much like the ninja turtles, x-men and power rangers of yesteryear, today's models will never be the same.


I didn't like Tonka trucks bc I wasn't a fan of the metal, but I had my fair collection of action figures with matching cartoons (or I guess the other way around). I tried watching X-men the other day with my nephew and it was painful. All the characters and storylines were there, but it was somehow perverted. It was like when Disney took over Doug. Or Rugrats post feature length movie and Dill addition. Gah.


All of that was to say, with the exception of a few Barbie house pieces and miscellaneous plastic figures' body remnants, the only things that survived were stuffed animals, Happy Meal toys and my American Girl collection.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sponica
September 29, 2009 3:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TinkishDelight: i loved the tonka BECAUSE of the metal. the plastic ones just aren't the same....they lack that destructive capability

Reply
\"user-pic\"
god_forbids
September 29, 2009 10:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sponica (on furlough): OMG, yes! My TONKA truck (it deserves the respect of capitals) was heavy, armor-plated and pretty friggen indestructible. It could be filled with dirt 1,000x and only lose paint.

I think I eventually lost it to rust. :D

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
steph3530
September 29, 2009 2:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I saw this posted on another website last week, and holy crap were people craaaazy about defending this company. Anyway, I think these dolls bothered me less when it was Pleasant Company... maybe because it was local. Pleasant Rowland donated a lot of money to this community, and I can't say I've heard the same about Mattel.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
September 29, 2009 2:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@steph3530: Out of curiosity, and research, I went to the AG website and read some of the reviews. Ohhhhh boy, people are enthusiastic about these dolls. It got a little creepy when it got past \"this doll is so wonderful!\" to \"I got mine right away and dressed her in a purple flower dress\" - eeesh. It's kind of like the people who dress up their cats and throw them birthday parties and \"marry\" their cats and throw them anniversary parties.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
calquist
September 29, 2009 5:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: I worked at BuildABear for a bit for some extra cash and they have a creepy clientele there as well. People obsessed over collecting each animal and outfit. I also found it disgusting that people would bring their dogs in and try the clothes on their dogs. Dressing your dogs is one thing, but trying on clothes that you don't buy and then later some little kids take them home on their toys and put them in their mouths and stuff. blech!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MaBelle
September 29, 2009 2:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: I got snookered into going to the AG Chicago 'flagship' store for a tea party with my nieces for one of their birthdays (my own daughter was thankfully too young to know what was what). The line of girls with their dolls stretching down the street waiting for the store to open was one thing (it was a release day for one of the character dolls), but to see the grown women without children in tow, who were CLEARLY collecting for themselves was something else. One woman was admonished for rushing/pushing past a group of girls looking at the new-doll display to get her box. Another had three shopping bags full of clothing/accessories that she kept knocking into the others in the crowd. I escaped to the quiet of the theatre level while waiting for our tea reservation. Then, when checking out (my birthdya-girl niece got a few items from my mom & sis), that lady with 3 bags now had 5 and her total....was $3200. OMG. I'm so glad my girl likes her fishing pole and tonka-toys and hasn't asked for one of these dolls (yet).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Xay
September 29, 2009 2:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MaBelle: the AG store in Atlanta is creepy as hell.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
LightningUsagi
September 29, 2009 2:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I actually have 3 of the AG dolls from when I was younger. When Pleasant Company was founded (the original company who made the dolls), part of their mission was to help girls understand their part in history. Each doll was given an intricate story to help girls see how a girl in the 1800s or 1920 would have dealt with the same situations that are common today. As the line progressed, and Mattel took over, there have been key changes that have bothered me. Instead of introducing more historical characters, they have focused more on the Girls of Today. And the only way they have developed the historical line is by adding companion dolls. So instead of just having the main character and her story, there are random 'friend' dolls that have one or two outfits and a few books. They are more interested in the profits than the educational value...which was the core value of the line.


I have my dolls boxed up, but my 9 year old recently discovered the books I had from them. She tore thru the 6 books for Molly, and wanted to know more about WW2 when she was done. That's what these dolls should be about...sparking curiosity in girls. Not about fancy clothing and companion dolls.


Having ranted about all of that, I think it's good for them to make Gwen's story available so girls can learn about something that they may be otherwise shielded from. But I think it would be more fitting to offer more books about her and the situation. I noticed on their website that it never mentions anything about her homelessness... And none of the product reviews seem to mention it either. It's almost as if Mattel doesn't want that info to get out.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
NatalieErin
September 29, 2009 2:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LightningUsagi: Should have read farther down - I said some of the same things replying to someone else.


I definitely agree with you. I actually never had any of the dolls - they were out of our price range, but I loved the books dearly. History nerd from birth, I guess.


I hadn't realized that the company had changed hands, but that would explain why it's undergone such a change in focus since I was a kid, which wasn't that long ago. I remember picking up a catalog a few years ago and being surprised that they had so many dolls outside of the historical lines.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
KittensRCute!
September 29, 2009 3:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@NatalieErin: @LightningUsagi:

i completely agree with you. the change in hands to me was the downfall of this once great company.

if you still have one of the pleasant company catalogs you will see that in the first page they express disgust in barbies, and they have become overly expensive barbies.

anyway if you care these are some other things that have changed:

- the dolls are now made in china (they used to be made in germany by trained artist). remember that part of the reason the dolls were so expensive was that when you grow up and had your own daughter the doll would still be good as new when you gave it too your own daughter.
- Samantha is discounted - dispite the fact that everyone loved her, mattel found her profit margins to be less than that of the other dolls so they stop making here.
- the books dont matter anymore. indeed they dont even come out with new books but once in every fee years and they writting is not as good.
- book collections no longer include the section in the back with historical info and pictures.
- the accessories and doll items are no longer based on the books. the focus is on the dolls of today and the accessories for the girls of yesterday are bare minimum.
- basically if you loved something from the original pleasant company chances are its long gone.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
FaustianSlip
September 29, 2009 7:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@KittensRCute!: I heard about them discontinuing Samantha, and I was pretty livid. She was one of my favorites! I'm seriously considering trying to track down her books, at least, and buy a set before they're impossible to find.

And the books don't have the historical sections any more? WTF? That was usually my favorite part of the book!

Meh. Screw Mattel. They ruin everything. And shame on Pleasant Company for selling out to a company known for making the very doll series they claimed to dislike. What did they think would happen to the AG dolls?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LightningUsagi
September 29, 2009 3:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@KittensRCute!: Guess I'll be scrounging stuff up on eBay! The first doll I got was Kirsten, and my grandfather actually handmade and painted a trunk and bed for me that is identical to the produced one. My grandmother made the matress and pillow. Actually, most of the clothing i have for my dolls was made by my grandmother and mother...which was part of the draw of the line. It was almost like when they were younger and had to make clothing for their dolls. Mattel has taken all the wholesome qualities away and turned it into a cash cow.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
KittensRCute!
September 29, 2009 5:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LightningUsagi: exactly!!!

i dont know if you remember but pleasant company used to sell Dress patterns for like 10.95$ or something similar and they also had paper doll sets for $6.95 or someting. with the dress patterns you and your mother could MAKE the dresses for your doll and if you didnt have a lot of money you could get the paper dolls and play out the scenes and stories that way.

also they used to have a real craft fromeach girl. so for Samantha i remember there was a real (tiny) ice cream maker for the doll but you could learn how they made real ice cream in her time but also have edible ice cream. molly had a gingerbread house, felicity had fancy paper making kit. what was cool about this stuff was that you could learn who different things were done back them, have a craft and have someting, usually edible, for yourself as a little girl.

of course mattel killed all of that.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
thesadtomato
September 29, 2009 9:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@KittensRCute!: I had the gingerbread house! There was a kit you could make it with. Oh, memories.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
FaustianSlip
September 29, 2009 7:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@KittensRCute!: I still have the paper dolls floating around somewhere.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mechteach
September 29, 2009 6:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@KittensRCute!: &
@LightningUsagi:

So, to sum up your posts: \"Back when I was a kid, back when things were cool....\"

Seriously, though, I agree with you both that the Pleasant Company was head and shoulders above Mattel in quality and focus, but that doesn't mean that the AG franchise is now worthless.

Yes, the quality has gone down, and the focus now is much more on the Girls of Today and Bitty Babies (ugh). However, AG is still introducing many, many girls to history through the existing books and newly-produced dolls.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Fanboy1217
September 29, 2009 2:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I can remember my little sister getting the Molly Doll from my aunt for Christmas one year. I think it was the WW2 storyline with the victory garden and all. I can remember looking through the catalog looking at how much everything cost for the doll. Don't even get me started on when American Girl Place opened on Michigan Ave Downtown. I think we were in there maybe 2 times and each time i just wanted to get the hell out of there. just a bunch of whiny little girls asking for everything under the sun and then complaining when they could only get the $100 bed/trunk. it's even worse that they make the children sized costumes so you can dress up like your doll.

Being in there reminded me of Bart and Funzo:
Bart: And I want Funzo's dream fortress, Funzo's lower back pain chair,
Funzo's European Voltage converter--
Funzo: Why not get three?
Bart: [gasp] Three it is. [writes \"3\" in book, breaking the pencil lead;
sharpens it in Funzo's ear] Thanks, Funzo. You rock!
Funzo: Alrighty! [plays music and dances]

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
ElizabethD
September 29, 2009 2:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Clearly you are all too young to have owned, as I did in the late 1940s, the Poor Pitiful Pearl doll, based on a children's book. She was -- well, poor and pitiful, dressed in rags. After my parents died, I found her stored carefully away in the attic and was astonished that I'd owned such a thing in my whitebread suburban childhood. (And yes, I sold Pearl on eBay. Very collectible.)


Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
September 29, 2009 5:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ElizabethD: Wow, you've just illuminated a bit of my childhood for me--my mother used to call me \"Poor pitiful Pearl\" when I was beset by childhood woes, and I had no idea where it came from.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ElizabethD
September 29, 2009 2:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ElizabethD:

Hmmm, I'm trying to embed a pic of Pearl but obviously not doing it right. not the h ref code?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
September 29, 2009 2:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ElizabethD: Embedding a photo is [img src= (but replace the [ with the side carrot).


The code can get wacky here, so sometimes [image src= works too.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
cmdrsass
September 29, 2009 2:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I hear all those Cabbage Patch Kids are orphans, too!

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
starrion
September 29, 2009 2:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

How did the PR types so completely lose the thread on this one?


This could have been bursting with WIN for Mattel.
Buy the LIMITED Edition Homeless Gwen American Girl and Mattel will donate $50 to -insert national charity-!


Positive spin, and the money wouldn't sting them that much since it would be tax deductible anyway.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
September 29, 2009 2:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@starrion: Their defense is that they gave about $500,000 in the past three years to one charity. For a massive corporation like Mattel, I'm not sure this one was anything more than one line in its account books.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
PickyPatron
September 29, 2009 2:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

As someone who has loved American Girl dolls for almost 15 years now, I'm going to defend the idea of Gwen. First of all, the fact that she has no accessories has nothing to do with her homeless state: if you look at their online store, you'll see that \"Chrissa,\" the main doll who is friends with Gwen, also has another friend named Sonali, and she doesn't have any accessories either. It's the role the character is meant to fill in the line, not some comment by the company that homeless people only have one outfit and no toys.
Second, yes the doll is $95, and to some of you that may seem ridiculous, but as Eyebrows McGee mentioned, they are incredibly well made. There are many parents who have no problem laying down $200 or more for a video game console, plus a subsequent $50 for every game for their children. Why is a doll not worth that? I can guarantee you that I got WAY more play out of one American Girl doll as a child than my brother did any video games.
Third, the entire concept of the line of dolls was to provide dolls for girls in the 7- to 12-year-old range that weren't baby dolls but weren't adult fashion dolls, like Barbie. Every doll comes with a story, sometimes historical, and I've read many, if not most of those stories. They teach wonderful values to children. As a 9-year-old girl, reading the Samantha books taught me about women's suffrage in the early 20th century, and taught me that more privileged children (like Samantha and myself) could not only help other children in impoverished circumstances but befriend them as well.
Perhaps Mattel should donate proceeds to homelessness, but maybe they already donate a portion of their profits to worthy causes? I honestly don't know. But regardless, the Gwen doll, like Samantha's friend Nellie, teaches children who are more privileged that not all children are as fortunate as them, and that not only are they worth helping, but they are people, too, who are worth befriending. And for me, that lesson is easily worth $95 a kid, especially if that kid will then become the kind of person who is motivated to donate time and money to the homeless themselves.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Xay
September 29, 2009 2:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I secretly crave an American Girl doll, but I do think that a homeless doll is in poor taste without linking it to a charity. I am curious about what her accessories are though - can you buy a proportional cardboard box?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
September 29, 2009 4:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@xay: I'm torn between buying an Eye-Gouger to maximize the alms-earning potential of my Homeless American Doll, or the Pretty Baby upgrade that will really boost her earning capacity!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Hypatia.xxee
September 29, 2009 2:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm actually surprised American Girl dolls only cost $95 considering they cost $80 about 20 years ago. I get the irony of the expensive homeless doll, but as others have mentioned, if Samantha's friend (the child laborer in a factory) had actually been made into a doll, it would have been much the same thing.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
queenofdenial
September 30, 2009 4:58 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Hypatia.xxee: The child laborer was made into a doll! But discontinued last year with the rest of Samantha's product line since they released another doll close to her time period.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
KittensRCute!
September 29, 2009 3:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Hypatia.xxee:
yes but 20 years ago they were made in germany by artisans, today they come from china.

also samantha's friend (PS. the sametha doll as been discontinued, i think it was too popular) was ADOPTED by samanthas friend and thus no longer homeless. in other words she wasnt just a homeless token, samantha actually took steps to improve her friend's life.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Kimaroo - 100% Pure Natural Kitteh
September 29, 2009 2:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wouldn't it be an entirely other kind of contraversy if the homeless doll was cheaper than all her other doll friends? I'm assuming that all of the American Girl dolls are 95 dollars.


When I was growing up I used to get limited edition collectible barbies that were only sold at Halmark Stores. As far as I know they cost $50+, and I played with them. Atleast these dolls are bigger and more um.. I dunno.. durrable? I was never rough on my barbies.. but I knew girls who were.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
sponica
September 29, 2009 2:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Kimaroo - 20% More Kitty Added!: yeah i was one of those girls...but that's what happens when Barbie meets TONKA DUMP TRUCK! Barbie was also held hostage by Shredder and the ninja turtles had to rescue her...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Kimaroo - 100% Pure Natural Kitteh
September 29, 2009 3:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sponica (now with MORE caffeine): Lol.. My barbies would just go on dates with the Turtles, Batman, and the Ghostbusters. My brother would play with me.. Barbie even stayed over at the Ghostbusters' house. Barbie always drove her car though. Batman was annoyed that she couldn't fit in the Batmobile.


I knew girls that would cut off their barbies' hair. Traumatizing for me! Or they would get the hair all fuzzed out and tangled in an elastic hairband.


Then they would want to play with MY barbies cause they always looked so nice : /


I sound so prissy and snobby in this thread.. but I just took care of my toys.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sponica
September 29, 2009 6:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Kimaroo - 20% More Kitty Added!: oh yes, i remember hair cuts...and barbie taking a bath then getting all mildewy.

i didn't have brothers...my parents raised 3 very destructive girls. sort of.
while barbie met some poor fates, mulder and scully were NOT ALLOWED to leave their boxes for very long. and cmdr worf was not a play thing.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
calquist
September 29, 2009 5:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Kimaroo - 20% More Kitty Added!: I loved barbies and dolls, but hated the feeling of doll hair. I would just have my mom make tight ponytails or braids or I would just cram something over their heads. I would have cut their hair, but my mom would have had a fit. I was definitely the girl with the ratty doll hair, but I didn't care less. I was all about the fashion. Unfortunately now, I am now 23 years old and incapable of doing anything with my own hair beyond brushing straight or ponytails. I didn't even own a hair dryer until sophomore year of college.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
September 29, 2009 4:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Kimaroo - 20% More Kitty Added!: Yep, that was me. I put my Barbies in various vehicles other than the convertible because I never had the convertible. And I also got Barbie's hair all tangled in a hair band, and had no idea how to untangle it. So eventually, Barbie had a misshapen 'fro.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Kimaroo - 100% Pure Natural Kitteh
September 29, 2009 2:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Kimaroo - 20% More Kitty Added!: Oh, and to be clear.. those collectible ones weren't my \"every day barbies\".. My grandma bought me them for Christmas once she thought I was old enough for them.

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
philipbarrett
September 29, 2009 2:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I think a lot of the commentators are confusing the pre-Mattel & post-Mattel AG. Pre-Mattel, albeit expensive, had some good stuff going for them, the books in particular. My daughter learned to read with Molly and attended a bookstore reading by the series' author. I don't remember any modern AGs at that time and I believe Molly, set during WWII was as recent as they got.

As for the cost, anybody priced up a PS-3 recently? It's OK for boys to have $400 toys but not girls? Some sexism here per chance?

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
Charlotte Rae's Web
September 30, 2009 4:12 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@philipbarrett: Talk about sexism - why is the PS3 a boys toy in your mind? My daughter plays with her PS3, DS and Wii way more than her always gather dusting AG doll.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
September 29, 2009 5:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@philipbarrett: I don't think the books were any great shakes either, and it was a lily-white line for quite a long time and controversial as a result. But I think you've got a point about the sexism, and that there's a bit of the kids' version of Consumerist classic \"expensive clothes and purses are dumb, expensive cars and wire stuff is fun.\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
September 29, 2009 3:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@philipbarrett: You're defining a PS3 as a boy's toy? I'm a girl and have a PS3. The PS3 is not a boy's toy. It can be for both genders and all ages.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LuvJones
September 29, 2009 3:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@philipbarrett: no sexism...an overpriced toy is an overpriced toy no matter what sex it's aimed towards. My kids have a Wii because my husband is a game console idiot. But the good thing about game consoles is EVERYONE can find something they want to play.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
rorschachex
September 29, 2009 2:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This confuses me, if you bought the doll, then it wouldn't be homeless when you brought it home, so you're out $95. Frankly, just take any other doll and leave it outside, when your kid finds it, it'll be a 'homeless doll.' And they say you can't make your own toys...

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
hi
September 29, 2009 2:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Why not befriend a real homeless person for free?


Now make my friend a millionare:


+ Watch video



Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
vladthepaler
September 29, 2009 2:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

...but does it blend?

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
KittensRCute!
September 29, 2009 2:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

some 12 years ago i got an aamerican girl doll when i was a child. the company could not be more different. firstly, the focus then was on the BOOKS and the stories. seconding the dolls did cost $82 then but they were made in german and had amazing craftsman ship. thirdly the company was called pleasent company, was independently owned before the owner sold out to mattel. there original pleasant company would never have done something so crass and stupid and offensive.

i am sure we can all agree that it always sucks to see something you loved and wholesome turned into $95 dolls of homeless girls, made by girls in china. i really think the whole american girl company heeds to be ashamed of itself and pull the dolls from the market last week. as well as recalling any sold dolls as the whole things is crass and offensive.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
September 29, 2009 3:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@KittensRCute!: According to Wikipedia, Pleasant Company was sold to Mattel in 1999. It's a shame that quality has fallen, and a lot, if not all, of the artisans in Germany who once made the dolls are no longer practicing their craft. From what I have read, the dolls are very well made, and it's a shame that Mattel didn't think about this before transferring their factories.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
KittensRCute!
September 29, 2009 4:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: its true.

you know i dont have kids yet but if i do, i would sooner get a used pleasent company doll that was made in germany than a new one made in china but the quality was so much better. if you can get your hands on one of the old pleasant company catalogs you would see why. to parents they had a note that said that they dolls would be able to passed down from generation to generation but girls could still play with them to heart content, because the workmans ship was that good. i believe it, my old doll still looks like new.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
meg9
September 29, 2009 3:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Okay, where was I when the AG doll prices jumped to 95 dollars? I thought they were around 70. 95 is way too expensive---although the AG cafe has the best 4 course lunch in on 5th avenue that you can get for around 20 bucks :) with appetizers, pink lemonade, and a desert tray to boot ;)

Their outfits are around 30 a piece, their furniture is around 100 for a set, I love these dolls, but I'm VERY glad that I don't have a little girl right now who would beg me for them.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Laura Northrup
September 29, 2009 3:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@inadequatewife: When I was visiting the American Girl store in Chicago, there was a woman, probably in her late 30s, walking around with a doll customized to look like her. But she was petite enough to fit into the larger range of kids' clothing, and so she and the doll were wearing matching outfits from the store.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
thesadtomato
September 29, 2009 9:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Laura Northrup: Weird. But puts me a-mind of the Pleasant Company back in the day when most of what you could buy in the catalog were historical clothes that matched your doll's historic outfits--and you could get the range of outfits, like the party dress, the everyday outfit, the pjs. I.e., adorable 1940's dresses, 19th century nightgowns, Edwardian fancy pinafores and really cool pioneer boots. They stopped that, eventually, in favor of modern clothes and then I outgrew it.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
skztr
September 29, 2009 4:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yeah, this is sick! Homeless \"people\" aren't real people, and so no one should ever make a doll depicting them, especially one who isn't somehow grubby, beat up, etc. She should be wearing a potato sack, have shit in her hair, and a bag full of drugs, because /that/ is what homeless girls are like!

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
KittensRCute!
September 29, 2009 5:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@skztr: i think you completely missed the point of why people are unhappy about this. read the article and the comments again.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
ClockOnTheStove
September 29, 2009 5:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I make my own homeless children at home.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Triterion
September 29, 2009 5:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

She's not a homeless doll if you take her home with you! That's the lesson they're trying to teach!
/s

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
LIJ
September 29, 2009 6:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This story hits home with me ---

I have always had reservations about AG, as it seems to me that the girls who might possibly benefit the most from the novels, historical stories, ethnic and cultural diversity the company promotes, most likely will never have access to it at such an insane price.
My daughter has ONE doll, received as a gift. We make any clothes and accessories to go with her. I read the site once in a while, looking for charitable programs, but have not found any. More emphasis on the whole idea of consumption, featuring girls who own 10 or more or these dolls.
I have little doubt there is any profit margin issues with AG, and really , that they could market this doll without at least a percentage of profit to homeless is kinda sick. Even from a cynical viewpoint, it could increase sales from guilty suburban parents, increase bragging rights of ownership, etc.

This will be interesting to follow, now that the company is being put on the spot.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
LeChiffre
September 29, 2009 6:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If it were a true homeless doll, it would wear torn clothing, wear old eye glasses with scraggly hair and when you pull the string to hear it talk, it just mumbles and walks in circles.

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
That's Consumer007 to you
September 29, 2009 8:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So are the trailer trash girl doll, the women's shelter doll, domestic violence victim doll and meth lab girl doll etc. coming next? How about the Jerry Springer angry female guest star action figure (bitch slap) doll?

just sayin...

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
AgentTuttle
September 29, 2009 9:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Am I the only one who cares that the \"American\" girl doll is made in freakin China? They should make a sweatshop worker doll.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Charlotte Rae's Web
September 30, 2009 4:10 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I hate American Girl stuff. HUGE ripoff. Every mother who ever has agreed to have an American Girl party and tells the kids to bring their American Girl dolls should be shot. My daughter has one and I totally regret wasting $100 on it

Incredibly well-made? It's a DOLL. My 1970s Baby Alive was just as well-made.

Wonderful values? Certainly not the value of a buck.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Dethzilla
September 30, 2009 8:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yet... no one complained about the 4 turtles who lived in the sewers with a giant rat and had pizzas delivered to man hole covers and exchanged goods in \"flasher-like\" trench coats.

$95 is a small price to pay to give a homeless doll a good home.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
krunk4ever
September 30, 2009 9:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I wonder if any of the profits for this dolls goes to charities which support the homeless...

Reply
");