The American Girl series of dolls by toymaker Mattel were conceived as a way to teach a bit of history to young girls; each doll represents a different outlook, race, or time period from American history. There are Native American dolls, Swedish immigrant dolls, African slave dolls, and now a homeless doll named Gwen Thompson.
Gwen’s story details how her father left her and her mother, who lost her job, forcing the two of them to live out of their car. This is all fine and well; homelessness is certainly a part of life that deserves attention. However, the doll caters to children of families who can afford to buy their kids a $95 plaything, and none of the proceeds go toward fighting homelessness. This seems hypocritical of Mattel, and once a group of mothers began a boycott of the product, Mattel announced that some portion of proceeds would go toward bullying education, which really isn’t the same thing at all.
At the same time, however, do we want our kids to play at homelessness? Sure, it’s a subject that ought to be openly discussed, but I’m a believer that children ought to roleplay their dreams, fantasies, and aspirations. You would never let your children roleplay child abuse, so why would you want them to pretend to live on the street? Don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying those two situations are identical, but play should ideally be formative as well as fun. Playing with blocks teaches spatial awareness. Play with paints and crayons teaches emotional self-expression. Co-operative play, such as with sports, teaches sociability, and the ability to win and lose with grace. Playing at homelessness might teach humility at best, but I’d be more concerned about some kind of dissolute weary inevitability settling in instead. Let’s keep our children’s play light!
Comments
No comments.