BOYCOTT AMERICAN GIRL!!

[Melanie]

I stumbled upon this today, this is just awful. I will never spend a dime on any of their snooty crap:

http://oneofthosehorriblemoms.blogspot.com/2007/03/fake-out.html

[KBecks]

Yeah, this story sucks, that's for sure. I'd like to think that corporate could make it right, but what on earth could they do? It would be wrong to send a free "real" doll at this point. She could be invited back to AG Place for a special party for her Target doll and maybe be given some free clothes?

However, her mom is taking it to the Web to bash AG, so a resolution is very unlikely to happen.

I feel bad this kind of thing happens.

[MelissaTC]

That sucks. Poor kid.

I wonder if there is something to do with the hair. Not that the hair justifies the stylist's behavior or those standing in the line, I am just curious. In any case, it is crappy. :(

[MelissaTC]

That sucks. Poor kid.

I wonder if there is something to do with the hair. Not that the hair justifies the stylist's behavior or those standing in the line, I am just curious. In any case, it is crappy. :(

[madelinesmom]

I knew I heard something about this last year, Here are a couple of links but this is these are the basics of the story. This is in no way an attempt to discuss abortions and whether they should be legal or not, I do however believe that Reproductive Freedom is not something that should be discussed on a website called Girls Inc. I for one don't want to explain to my 9 year old what Reproductive Freedom even is... I will post two links.

This is a link to a website called pro-life action league, I am not a member or a frequent reader, it was one of the pages I googled. I will post the address and the focus of the article.

http://www.prolifeaction.org/home/2005/girls.htm

The Anti-Family Agenda of Girls Inc.

Excerpts from the Girls Inc. advocacy statement on girls' health makes their anti-family agenda clear (emphasis added):

* "Girls Incorporated supports a woman's freedom of choice, a constitutional right established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 in Roe vs. Wade."
* "To make responsible decisions about sexuality, pregnancy and parenthood, girls need and have a right to sensitive, truthful sexuality education; convenient access to safe, effective methods of contraception and protection from disease; and referral to comprehensive information, counseling, clinical and other services that support their responsible decisions."
* "Girls have a right to positive, supportive environments and linkages to community resources for dealing with issues of sexual orientation."

In addition, Girls Inc.'s list [PDF] of "Sexuality Resources for Girls" includes books promoting premarital sex, birth control, contraception and abortion. And while Girls Inc. says they promote abstinence, their program for pregnancy prevention depends on providing birth control, and Girls Inc. opposed additional funding for abstinence education in the U.S. Senate.

This is the link to Girl's Inc. I also am not a reader or member of their organization.

http://www.girlsinc.com/ic/page.php?id=4.3.4

These is the area that I am interested in:

Reproductive Freedom

Girls Incorporated affirms that girls and young women should make responsible decisions about sexuality, pregnancy and parenthood.

We recognize the right of all women to choose whether, when, and under what circumstances to bear children. Reproductive freedom and responsibility are essential to other rights and opportunities, including pursuit of education, employment, financial security and a stable and fulfilling family life. Restrictions of reproductive choice are especially burdensome for young women and poor women. Girls Incorporated supports a woman’s freedom of choice, a constitutional right established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 in Roe vs. Wade.

In my opinion there are many ways to teach daughters to respect themselves without bringing Reproductive Freedom in on the topic.

Once again this is not an attempt to discuss abortion, simply another reason someone might want to boycott an organization.


Jane
Madeline 1/20/03
Emily 11/29/05
http://b4.lilypie.com/l3-em6/.png
http://b1.lilypie.com/-FG1m6/.png

[madelinesmom]

I knew I heard something about this last year, Here are a couple of links but this is these are the basics of the story. This is in no way an attempt to discuss abortions and whether they should be legal or not, I do however believe that Reproductive Freedom is not something that should be discussed on a website called Girls Inc. I for one don't want to explain to my 9 year old what Reproductive Freedom even is... I will post two links.

This is a link to a website called pro-life action league, I am not a member or a frequent reader, it was one of the pages I googled. I will post the address and the focus of the article.

http://www.prolifeaction.org/home/2005/girls.htm

The Anti-Family Agenda of Girls Inc.

Excerpts from the Girls Inc. advocacy statement on girls' health makes their anti-family agenda clear (emphasis added):

* "Girls Incorporated supports a woman's freedom of choice, a constitutional right established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 in Roe vs. Wade."
* "To make responsible decisions about sexuality, pregnancy and parenthood, girls need and have a right to sensitive, truthful sexuality education; convenient access to safe, effective methods of contraception and protection from disease; and referral to comprehensive information, counseling, clinical and other services that support their responsible decisions."
* "Girls have a right to positive, supportive environments and linkages to community resources for dealing with issues of sexual orientation."

In addition, Girls Inc.'s list [PDF] of "Sexuality Resources for Girls" includes books promoting premarital sex, birth control, contraception and abortion. And while Girls Inc. says they promote abstinence, their program for pregnancy prevention depends on providing birth control, and Girls Inc. opposed additional funding for abstinence education in the U.S. Senate.

This is the link to Girl's Inc. I also am not a reader or member of their organization.

http://www.girlsinc.com/ic/page.php?id=4.3.4

These is the area that I am interested in:

Reproductive Freedom

Girls Incorporated affirms that girls and young women should make responsible decisions about sexuality, pregnancy and parenthood.

We recognize the right of all women to choose whether, when, and under what circumstances to bear children. Reproductive freedom and responsibility are essential to other rights and opportunities, including pursuit of education, employment, financial security and a stable and fulfilling family life. Restrictions of reproductive choice are especially burdensome for young women and poor women. Girls Incorporated supports a woman’s freedom of choice, a constitutional right established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 in Roe vs. Wade.

In my opinion there are many ways to teach daughters to respect themselves without bringing Reproductive Freedom in on the topic.

Once again this is not an attempt to discuss abortion, simply another reason someone might want to boycott an organization.


Jane
Madeline 1/20/03
Emily 11/29/05
http://b4.lilypie.com/l3-em6/.png
http://b1.lilypie.com/-FG1m6/.png

[Sillygirl]

For many mamas here, myself included, that may be a reason to support the company. I think, with so many diverse political opinions on this board, adding an anti-abortion boycott post on to the OP's thread is like waving a red flag in front of a bull. (As some recent posts in the lounge may illustrate.) This board is probably not the best place to rally people to the anti-abortion cause. From a pro-choice supporter, that agenda sounds pretty great and I'm glad to see corporations of any type be explicit in their support for reproductive rights. So I think, despite your disclaimer, that only one side of the abortion debate would get too excited about a boycott based on those grounds.

[Sillygirl]

For many mamas here, myself included, that may be a reason to support the company. I think, with so many diverse political opinions on this board, adding an anti-abortion boycott post on to the OP's thread is like waving a red flag in front of a bull. (As some recent posts in the lounge may illustrate.) This board is probably not the best place to rally people to the anti-abortion cause. From a pro-choice supporter, that agenda sounds pretty great and I'm glad to see corporations of any type be explicit in their support for reproductive rights. So I think, despite your disclaimer, that only one side of the abortion debate would get too excited about a boycott based on those grounds.

[maestramommy]

OMG, are you kidding me?! The only problem I can think of was that the doll had hair that couldn't be styled in a certain way, but to my untrained eye that doll on the website looks like the real thing! I can imagine the mom's indignation.

Dora is NOT going to get into American Girl Dolls. I was pretty sure of this before I read this link because d*mnit, they are so effing expensive!! A doll played by a tween shouldn't cost that much, just so they can have that cachet.

This is not to offend anyone who has and loves them. I've read the books and I think they're great. Dh's niece loves them and 3 of her own. SIL tells me that they are great quality dolls. But with all due respect to them, I'm sorry, I can't stomach shelling out that much for a doll that then has a whole line of accessories.

[maestramommy]

OMG, are you kidding me?! The only problem I can think of was that the doll had hair that couldn't be styled in a certain way, but to my untrained eye that doll on the website looks like the real thing! I can imagine the mom's indignation.

Dora is NOT going to get into American Girl Dolls. I was pretty sure of this before I read this link because d*mnit, they are so effing expensive!! A doll played by a tween shouldn't cost that much, just so they can have that cachet.

This is not to offend anyone who has and loves them. I've read the books and I think they're great. Dh's niece loves them and 3 of her own. SIL tells me that they are great quality dolls. But with all due respect to them, I'm sorry, I can't stomach shelling out that much for a doll that then has a whole line of accessories.

[chlobo]

I"m confused. American Girl is owned by Mattel. What does Girls, Inc. have to do with that?

[chlobo]

I"m confused. American Girl is owned by Mattel. What does Girls, Inc. have to do with that?

[Melanie]

I gathered from some googling that American Girl Donated 50,000 to Girl's Inc.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9937614/site/newsweek/

In any case, I'm sticking with the "they suck for making a little girl feel like crap," opinion.

[Melanie]

I gathered from some googling that American Girl Donated 50,000 to Girl's Inc.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9937614/site/newsweek/

In any case, I'm sticking with the "they suck for making a little girl feel like crap," opinion.

[madelinesmom]

I think, with so many diverse political
>opinions on this board, adding an anti-abortion boycott post
>on to the OP's thread is like waving a red flag in front of a
>bull. (As some recent posts in the lounge may illustrate.)
>This board is probably not the best place to rally people to
>the anti-abortion cause. From a pro-choice supporter, that
>agenda sounds pretty great and I'm glad to see corporations of
>any type be explicit in their support for reproductive rights.
> So I think, despite your disclaimer, that only one side of
>the abortion debate would get too excited about a boycott
>based on those grounds.

I was not trying to "wave a red flag in front of a bull" or "rally people to a anti-abortion cause". But I must say that by saying there are "so many diverse political opinions on this board", I would assume that there is room for both opinions, be it pro-choice or pro-life. I like to think of this place as inclusive, room for everyone.

Edited for spelling...

Jane
Madeline 1/20/03
Emily 11/29/05
http://b4.lilypie.com/l3-em6/.png


http://b1.lilypie.com/-FG1m6/.png

[madelinesmom]

I think, with so many diverse political
>opinions on this board, adding an anti-abortion boycott post
>on to the OP's thread is like waving a red flag in front of a
>bull. (As some recent posts in the lounge may illustrate.)
>This board is probably not the best place to rally people to
>the anti-abortion cause. From a pro-choice supporter, that
>agenda sounds pretty great and I'm glad to see corporations of
>any type be explicit in their support for reproductive rights.
> So I think, despite your disclaimer, that only one side of
>the abortion debate would get too excited about a boycott
>based on those grounds.

I was not trying to "wave a red flag in front of a bull" or "rally people to a anti-abortion cause". But I must say that by saying there are "so many diverse political opinions on this board", I would assume that there is room for both opinions, be it pro-choice or pro-life. I like to think of this place as inclusive, room for everyone.

Edited for spelling...

Jane
Madeline 1/20/03
Emily 11/29/05
http://b4.lilypie.com/l3-em6/.png


http://b1.lilypie.com/-FG1m6/.png

[madelinesmom]

I thought I would add that I did some more searching tonight and found out that the partnership between American Girl and Girls Inc ended in December of 2005.

This is a quote from the story:
Also Mattel, the maker of the doll has decided it will not renew its partnership with Girls Inc. which runs out this year.

This clarification appears at the end.

Clarification: American Girl responded after viewing the CBS report, saying while they considered the report fair and balanced they wanted to point out the "I Can" program and Girls Inc. partnership was always planned as a 2005 initiative and the end date of Dec 26, 2005, was mutually agreed upon by both parties.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/21/eveningnews/main1156552.shtml

Jane
Madeline 1/20/03
Emily 11/29/05
http://b4.lilypie.com/l3-em6/.png
http://b1.lilypie.com/-FG1m6/.png

[madelinesmom]

I thought I would add that I did some more searching tonight and found out that the partnership between American Girl and Girls Inc ended in December of 2005.

This is a quote from the story:
Also Mattel, the maker of the doll has decided it will not renew its partnership with Girls Inc. which runs out this year.

This clarification appears at the end.

Clarification: American Girl responded after viewing the CBS report, saying while they considered the report fair and balanced they wanted to point out the "I Can" program and Girls Inc. partnership was always planned as a 2005 initiative and the end date of Dec 26, 2005, was mutually agreed upon by both parties.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/21/eveningnews/main1156552.shtml

Jane
Madeline 1/20/03
Emily 11/29/05
http://b4.lilypie.com/l3-em6/.png
http://b1.lilypie.com/-FG1m6/.png

[Globetrotter]

Um, you know, even if the hair is the issue (which I also thought, though I HIGHLY doubt it) there are much nicer, KINDER ways to deliver this message to a child. This is infuriating, if indeed it happened, and I cannot stand for this snootiness. What kind of message is that sending to our girls?? I wonder if that is the policy? Does anyone know? I don't care what other people do with their money, but to put someone else down because they choose not to do it???

My dd has a quality knock-off made by a famous European company (can't remember the name, not Corelle but similar) and I got it at Tuesday Morning for a great price. It fits into AG clothes. I consider AG, but I actually prefer this one because I don't really like the look of AG dolls (something about the eyes) and now I have another reason not to go to AG Place (not that they would let us in).
ETA: The company is Gotz!

Kris

[Globetrotter]

Um, you know, even if the hair is the issue (which I also thought, though I HIGHLY doubt it) there are much nicer, KINDER ways to deliver this message to a child. This is infuriating, if indeed it happened, and I cannot stand for this snootiness. What kind of message is that sending to our girls?? I wonder if that is the policy? Does anyone know? I don't care what other people do with their money, but to put someone else down because they choose not to do it???

My dd has a quality knock-off made by a famous European company (can't remember the name, not Corelle but similar) and I got it at Tuesday Morning for a great price. It fits into AG clothes. I consider AG, but I actually prefer this one because I don't really like the look of AG dolls (something about the eyes) and now I have another reason not to go to AG Place (not that they would let us in).
ETA: The company is Gotz!

Kris

[KBecks]

She's just pointing out another AG controversy / boycott. As has already been discussed, the Girls, Inc. boycott is old news. It was straying from the topic, but I believe it was posted with the intent of providing additional information for anyone interested, not propagandizing. (Is that a word?) Relax! Deep breaths...

[KBecks]

She's just pointing out another AG controversy / boycott. As has already been discussed, the Girls, Inc. boycott is old news. It was straying from the topic, but I believe it was posted with the intent of providing additional information for anyone interested, not propagandizing. (Is that a word?) Relax! Deep breaths...

[kcandz]

I agree. The original post was about the terrible treatment of a little girl at the hand of American Girl Place. How this got hijacked into a pro/anti choice is offensive to me.

Girls Inc is a great cause that does a lot of great work. If you don't like their politics, don't support them. But don't call for a boycott based on politics.

I boycott Dominos pizza for its political agenda. I certainly don't ask anyone here to do so.

[kcandz]

I agree. The original post was about the terrible treatment of a little girl at the hand of American Girl Place. How this got hijacked into a pro/anti choice is offensive to me.

Girls Inc is a great cause that does a lot of great work. If you don't like their politics, don't support them. But don't call for a boycott based on politics.

I boycott Dominos pizza for its political agenda. I certainly don't ask anyone here to do so.

[maestramommy]

Okay, went back to reread the link, and as many comments as I could. As I understand it, the company has a right to only style their own dolls' hair for various reasons. Could be brand protection, could be the hair is manufactured differently, or whatever. Even though the website didn't specify only AG dolls allowed, it was pointed out by several that the mother perhaps should have called to verify this.

That said, this was a huge PR blunder on the part of the stylist. As many posters said, she could have been much nicer, and just brushed the hair and put a bow in it or something, while explaining she didn't want to risk hurting the doll's hair. Also, a chat with the manager might have made a different. I will not be surprised if AG gets a black eye from this incident.

Doesn't change my stance on the dolls themselves though. The stories are great, but I still don't want to spend that much on a doll :P

[maestramommy]

Okay, went back to reread the link, and as many comments as I could. As I understand it, the company has a right to only style their own dolls' hair for various reasons. Could be brand protection, could be the hair is manufactured differently, or whatever. Even though the website didn't specify only AG dolls allowed, it was pointed out by several that the mother perhaps should have called to verify this.

That said, this was a huge PR blunder on the part of the stylist. As many posters said, she could have been much nicer, and just brushed the hair and put a bow in it or something, while explaining she didn't want to risk hurting the doll's hair. Also, a chat with the manager might have made a different. I will not be surprised if AG gets a black eye from this incident.

Doesn't change my stance on the dolls themselves though. The stories are great, but I still don't want to spend that much on a doll :P

[randomkid]

Are you serious?!?! I do sometimes wonder about the authenticity of these types of stories, but even if it is not true, there are a multitude of reasons to boycott this company. Price alone, to name one! I cannot believe what they charge for these dolls and their accessories. Not to mention the "Day at American Girl Place" for a mere $270 (only $220 for each additional child).

Politically speaking, we can all have our own opinions and I, for one, am glad that the PP enlightened me on the connection with Girls, Inc. Even if that connection has ended, it gives me good insight into the views of this company. I just think it's plain crappy and inappropriate to use little girls to raise money for any organization, no matter what their stance. Don't market your stuff to 6 year olds and use their money to support your cause! That's just wrong. I just don't think children's products should be used in a political environment.

I'm also a little confused. I don't get into these types of things for my DD or stepdaughters. I couldn't care less about labels and "keeping up with the Joneses", so excuse my ignorance. But, I've read many posts on these boards about commercialization of kids' products and how so many seem to be against it. No cartoon characters on anything, kids can't watch "those shows", etc. How are these dolls any different? I actually think they are worse. At least DD is learning from Elmo and Barney and I can spend $5 on something with those characters on it and she is thrilled. $87 for a doll? Please!

[randomkid]

Are you serious?!?! I do sometimes wonder about the authenticity of these types of stories, but even if it is not true, there are a multitude of reasons to boycott this company. Price alone, to name one! I cannot believe what they charge for these dolls and their accessories. Not to mention the "Day at American Girl Place" for a mere $270 (only $220 for each additional child).

Politically speaking, we can all have our own opinions and I, for one, am glad that the PP enlightened me on the connection with Girls, Inc. Even if that connection has ended, it gives me good insight into the views of this company. I just think it's plain crappy and inappropriate to use little girls to raise money for any organization, no matter what their stance. Don't market your stuff to 6 year olds and use their money to support your cause! That's just wrong. I just don't think children's products should be used in a political environment.

I'm also a little confused. I don't get into these types of things for my DD or stepdaughters. I couldn't care less about labels and "keeping up with the Joneses", so excuse my ignorance. But, I've read many posts on these boards about commercialization of kids' products and how so many seem to be against it. No cartoon characters on anything, kids can't watch "those shows", etc. How are these dolls any different? I actually think they are worse. At least DD is learning from Elmo and Barney and I can spend $5 on something with those characters on it and she is thrilled. $87 for a doll? Please!

[madelinesmom]

>I agree. The original post was about the terrible treatment
>of a little girl at the hand of American Girl Place. How this
>got hijacked into a pro/anti choice is offensive to me.


Threads on this board get hijacked all day every day for all sorts of reasons, I imagine had I hijacked this thread and said they were giving money to Planned Parenthood, American Girl would have been lauded for their support of women...

It is pretty apparent that anyone with a viewpoint different than the masses should just stay in the dark...

I am sorry if you were offended by simple links to the internet, I never realized that knowledge could be offensive. I don't believe I goaded the original poster, called anyone names, or tried to insight a riot...


Jane
Madeline 1/20/03
Emily 11/29/05
http://b4.lilypie.com/l3-em6/.png
http://b1.lilypie.com/-FG1m6/.png

[madelinesmom]

>I agree. The original post was about the terrible treatment
>of a little girl at the hand of American Girl Place. How this
>got hijacked into a pro/anti choice is offensive to me.


Threads on this board get hijacked all day every day for all sorts of reasons, I imagine had I hijacked this thread and said they were giving money to Planned Parenthood, American Girl would have been lauded for their support of women...

It is pretty apparent that anyone with a viewpoint different than the masses should just stay in the dark...

I am sorry if you were offended by simple links to the internet, I never realized that knowledge could be offensive. I don't believe I goaded the original poster, called anyone names, or tried to insight a riot...


Jane
Madeline 1/20/03
Emily 11/29/05
http://b4.lilypie.com/l3-em6/.png
http://b1.lilypie.com/-FG1m6/.png

[egoldber]

I've got to say I'm a little mystified at the anger being lofted at AG over this. (I've been reading about this on a few other boards too.) Yes that stylist was incredibly insensitive, I totally agree, but how does that make AG/Mattel a monstrous company? Any company can have an occasional bad apple that does stupid things. If someone had complained to the manager of the store, I bet something could have been done at the time.

Are the dolls expensive, sure. But lots of dolls that are considered collector type dolls are this expensive. And I personally like the messages and stories that AG teaches young girls through their books. We have one doll (it was actually a hand me down from an older cousin) and I will probably allow Sarah to select one for herself when she's a little older. Just because a company offers a variety of accessories and experiences for their product doesn't mean you have to partake of all those.

People endorse expensive things on this site all the time. Kettlers, Waldorf dolls, strollers, slings, Hanna clothes, etc. I really don't see how AG is any different. People perceive value in different ways. I'd rather spend $80 on a doll with a history and story with it than on a $30 doll with no accompanying story. But others may not. To each their own.

Edited for spelling...

[egoldber]

I've got to say I'm a little mystified at the anger being lofted at AG over this. (I've been reading about this on a few other boards too.) Yes that stylist was incredibly insensitive, I totally agree, but how does that make AG/Mattel a monstrous company? Any company can have an occasional bad apple that does stupid things. If someone had complained to the manager of the store, I bet something could have been done at the time.

Are the dolls expensive, sure. But lots of dolls that are considered collector type dolls are this expensive. And I personally like the messages and stories that AG teaches young girls through their books. We have one doll (it was actually a hand me down from an older cousin) and I will probably allow Sarah to select one for herself when she's a little older. Just because a company offers a variety of accessories and experiences for their product doesn't mean you have to partake of all those.

People endorse expensive things on this site all the time. Kettlers, Waldorf dolls, strollers, slings, Hanna clothes, etc. I really don't see how AG is any different. People perceive value in different ways. I'd rather spend $80 on a doll with a history and story with it than on a $30 doll with no accompanying story. But others may not. To each their own.

Edited for spelling...

[Momof3Labs]

>That said, this was a huge PR blunder on the part of the
>stylist.

Okay, this kind of makes me laugh. I'm sure that the stylist isn't making more than $7-8/hour, and PR is hardly their strong suit (or they'd be making a whole lot more money working in PR). Every company has bad apples, and to boycott a whole company based on the attitudes of one the most junior employees in the company just doesn't make sense to me.

Not that what happened to the little girl was right at all, but shouldn't this be put in perspective??

[Momof3Labs]

>That said, this was a huge PR blunder on the part of the
>stylist.

Okay, this kind of makes me laugh. I'm sure that the stylist isn't making more than $7-8/hour, and PR is hardly their strong suit (or they'd be making a whole lot more money working in PR). Every company has bad apples, and to boycott a whole company based on the attitudes of one the most junior employees in the company just doesn't make sense to me.

Not that what happened to the little girl was right at all, but shouldn't this be put in perspective??

[Roleysmom]

>I'm also a little confused. I don't get into these types of
>things for my DD or stepdaughters. I couldn't care less about
>labels and "keeping up with the Joneses", so excuse my
>ignorance. But, I've read many posts on these boards about
>commercialization of kids' products and how so many seem to be
>against it. No cartoon characters on anything, kids can't
>watch "those shows", etc. How are these dolls any different?
>I actually think they are worse. At least DD is learning from
>Elmo and Barney and I can spend $5 on something with those
>characters on it and she is thrilled. $87 for a doll?
>Please!

Who said these dolls were different? I can't speak for others, but we don't have clothing with cartoon characters, don't watch "those shows" and I do think that American Girl dolls are over the top. Do I think my daughter's limbs are going to fall off if she plays with one? No. Do I think she's going to be scarred for life? No. Will I let her receive one for a gift? Probably. I've actually given one as a gift a long time ago and did like the stories and historical aspect to them. I do think the dolls seem very well made. But the price is very high and when they morphed into this big cultural thing, I became less enamoured. I don't like that in some circles it seems to be a status symbol (as evidenced by some of the mothers' comments in the original link). That's so goofy to me. I do think that the marketing isn't as extreme as it is with other kid products. I have yet to see American Girl fruit snacks. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places. Which is fine with me.

Paula
Mom to Roley Julia, January '02

[Roleysmom]

>I'm also a little confused. I don't get into these types of
>things for my DD or stepdaughters. I couldn't care less about
>labels and "keeping up with the Joneses", so excuse my
>ignorance. But, I've read many posts on these boards about
>commercialization of kids' products and how so many seem to be
>against it. No cartoon characters on anything, kids can't
>watch "those shows", etc. How are these dolls any different?
>I actually think they are worse. At least DD is learning from
>Elmo and Barney and I can spend $5 on something with those
>characters on it and she is thrilled. $87 for a doll?
>Please!

Who said these dolls were different? I can't speak for others, but we don't have clothing with cartoon characters, don't watch "those shows" and I do think that American Girl dolls are over the top. Do I think my daughter's limbs are going to fall off if she plays with one? No. Do I think she's going to be scarred for life? No. Will I let her receive one for a gift? Probably. I've actually given one as a gift a long time ago and did like the stories and historical aspect to them. I do think the dolls seem very well made. But the price is very high and when they morphed into this big cultural thing, I became less enamoured. I don't like that in some circles it seems to be a status symbol (as evidenced by some of the mothers' comments in the original link). That's so goofy to me. I do think that the marketing isn't as extreme as it is with other kid products. I have yet to see American Girl fruit snacks. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places. Which is fine with me.

Paula
Mom to Roley Julia, January '02

[katiesmommy]

>It is pretty apparent that anyone with a viewpoint different
>than the masses should just stay in the dark...


Jane, I totally agree.

[katiesmommy]

>It is pretty apparent that anyone with a viewpoint different
>than the masses should just stay in the dark...


Jane, I totally agree.

[o_mom]

I don't see this at all. I was quite confused when reading this thread the first time as to why Girls Inc. and abortion were being brought up at all. The post about Girls Inc. seemed to be totally disconnected from American Girl leaving alot of people scratching their heads.

In addition, it was not stated as "I personally boycott them for other reasons, such as... X, Y and Z", but as "You should boycott them because they support abortion" (which is a very generous interpretation of even what Girls Inc says on their website, let alone attributing that to a company that happens to donate money to them). It should not be a shock then, when someone points out that they may actually considers supporting the company _because_ of their views on reproductive rights instead of joining your boycott.

The post was not "simple links to the internet", but quite a bit of editorializing along with it. That is what seemed to be baiting, whether intended or not.

[o_mom]

I don't see this at all. I was quite confused when reading this thread the first time as to why Girls Inc. and abortion were being brought up at all. The post about Girls Inc. seemed to be totally disconnected from American Girl leaving alot of people scratching their heads.

In addition, it was not stated as "I personally boycott them for other reasons, such as... X, Y and Z", but as "You should boycott them because they support abortion" (which is a very generous interpretation of even what Girls Inc says on their website, let alone attributing that to a company that happens to donate money to them). It should not be a shock then, when someone points out that they may actually considers supporting the company _because_ of their views on reproductive rights instead of joining your boycott.

The post was not "simple links to the internet", but quite a bit of editorializing along with it. That is what seemed to be baiting, whether intended or not.

[madelinesmom]

>I don't see this at all. I was quite confused when reading
>this thread the first time as to why Girls Inc. and abortion
>were being brought up at all. The post about Girls Inc.
>seemed to be totally disconnected from American Girl leaving
>alot of people scratching their heads.

Far be it from anyone one to try to add to the discussion, I was not aware that adding to the discussion, whatever the addition, is now off limits on the BBB... I will make a note.
>
>In addition, it was not stated as "I personally boycott them
>for other reasons, such as... X, Y and Z", but as "You should
>boycott them because they support abortion" (which is a very
>generous interpretation of even what Girls Inc says on their
>website, let alone attributing that to a company that happens
>to donate money to them).

We don't own the doll, I don't care if you buy 100. I personally don't believe posts like the OP linked, it was a personal story, with no proof to back it up, but I thought that the knowledge that others might have problems with this organization was a worthwhile addition. Sorry if additional information is disturbing.

>That is what seemed to be baiting, whether intended or not.

I only wanted to add again, that I am eternally sorry for baiting and trying to add another dimension to this discussion. A discussion that I might add started out with a link to an unsubstantiated post on a personal blog.



Jane
Madeline 1/20/03
Emily 11/29/05
http://b4.lilypie.com/l3-em6/.png
http://b1.lilypie.com/-FG1m6/.png

[madelinesmom]

>I don't see this at all. I was quite confused when reading
>this thread the first time as to why Girls Inc. and abortion
>were being brought up at all. The post about Girls Inc.
>seemed to be totally disconnected from American Girl leaving
>alot of people scratching their heads.

Far be it from anyone one to try to add to the discussion, I was not aware that adding to the discussion, whatever the addition, is now off limits on the BBB... I will make a note.
>
>In addition, it was not stated as "I personally boycott them
>for other reasons, such as... X, Y and Z", but as "You should
>boycott them because they support abortion" (which is a very
>generous interpretation of even what Girls Inc says on their
>website, let alone attributing that to a company that happens
>to donate money to them).

We don't own the doll, I don't care if you buy 100. I personally don't believe posts like the OP linked, it was a personal story, with no proof to back it up, but I thought that the knowledge that others might have problems with this organization was a worthwhile addition. Sorry if additional information is disturbing.

>That is what seemed to be baiting, whether intended or not.

I only wanted to add again, that I am eternally sorry for baiting and trying to add another dimension to this discussion. A discussion that I might add started out with a link to an unsubstantiated post on a personal blog.



Jane
Madeline 1/20/03
Emily 11/29/05
http://b4.lilypie.com/l3-em6/.png
http://b1.lilypie.com/-FG1m6/.png

[maddyzmommy]

Amen, Beth! My girls have four American Girl dolls between them because they're darling dolls. The book have great messages and my daughter LIKES to read them and the movies are very sweet. I don't allow my girls to watch regular television shows - no Disney teeny-bopper stuff and I don't want them watching all the nonsense commercials with girls wearing grown-up clothes - and I dislike the whole Barbie line and I think Bratz are, well, bratty. I'm in no rush for my children to grow up quickly and these dolls are so old-fashioned and lovely. I keep media in our home to Veggie Tales and sweet movies and I think AG dolls are in fine taste. I'm amazed how many of you seem to strongly dislike them. I know no one who feels this way IRL. Also, I've known about the connection to GirlsInc or whatever their name is for some time and I was fine with that. I'm a pro-lifer but when it comes to my own girls, I'm pro-girl and I'm fine with organizations being out there to support them and educate them when the parents are unable/unwilling/clueless in understanding what they need and when. Since they're seven and four and not allowed to go online without me and we have a content blocking filter for inappropriate content, I'm not worried for now. And when they're old enough to research these issues, I'm fine with that, too. I don't worry that exposure to information will result in deviant behavior. That's where parenting and values teaching comes in, in my mind. I see no need to boycott unless it comes out that AG purposely treats children poorly or looks the other way when it happens. Anyway, I highly doubt the original story happened as described in that blog. The comments from the other mothers in the line were too snide, too orchestrated for real life. Or maybe I just don't want to believe this about a doll line that has taught my girls about the American Revolution and slavery and class divides... Peace to you all, Sweet Mamas!

Andi

[maddyzmommy]

Amen, Beth! My girls have four American Girl dolls between them because they're darling dolls. The book have great messages and my daughter LIKES to read them and the movies are very sweet. I don't allow my girls to watch regular television shows - no Disney teeny-bopper stuff and I don't want them watching all the nonsense commercials with girls wearing grown-up clothes - and I dislike the whole Barbie line and I think Bratz are, well, bratty. I'm in no rush for my children to grow up quickly and these dolls are so old-fashioned and lovely. I keep media in our home to Veggie Tales and sweet movies and I think AG dolls are in fine taste. I'm amazed how many of you seem to strongly dislike them. I know no one who feels this way IRL. Also, I've known about the connection to GirlsInc or whatever their name is for some time and I was fine with that. I'm a pro-lifer but when it comes to my own girls, I'm pro-girl and I'm fine with organizations being out there to support them and educate them when the parents are unable/unwilling/clueless in understanding what they need and when. Since they're seven and four and not allowed to go online without me and we have a content blocking filter for inappropriate content, I'm not worried for now. And when they're old enough to research these issues, I'm fine with that, too. I don't worry that exposure to information will result in deviant behavior. That's where parenting and values teaching comes in, in my mind. I see no need to boycott unless it comes out that AG purposely treats children poorly or looks the other way when it happens. Anyway, I highly doubt the original story happened as described in that blog. The comments from the other mothers in the line were too snide, too orchestrated for real life. Or maybe I just don't want to believe this about a doll line that has taught my girls about the American Revolution and slavery and class divides... Peace to you all, Sweet Mamas!

Andi

[Globetrotter]

>I've got to say I'm a little mystified at the anger being
>lofted at AG over this. (I've been reading about this on a few
>other boards too.) Yes that stylist was incredibly
>insensitive, I totally agree, but how does that make AG/Mattel
>a monstrous company?

My problem, IF it happened (which I'm still not 100% sure of because it seems over the top) is with the shoddy customer service and the snooty comments from other moms in line. I like the historical aspect of some of the AG dolls. I buy expensive things all the time (more than I care to mention LOL) and had considered an AG Just like me doll, or whatever they are called, but that doesn't make me a better person in any way. I have seen this sort of snooty attitude IRL, not in my circle (they wouldn't be my friends if they were like that) but in certain "upscale" areas around here, so I know it happens.


Kris

[Globetrotter]

>I've got to say I'm a little mystified at the anger being
>lofted at AG over this. (I've been reading about this on a few
>other boards too.) Yes that stylist was incredibly
>insensitive, I totally agree, but how does that make AG/Mattel
>a monstrous company?

My problem, IF it happened (which I'm still not 100% sure of because it seems over the top) is with the shoddy customer service and the snooty comments from other moms in line. I like the historical aspect of some of the AG dolls. I buy expensive things all the time (more than I care to mention LOL) and had considered an AG Just like me doll, or whatever they are called, but that doesn't make me a better person in any way. I have seen this sort of snooty attitude IRL, not in my circle (they wouldn't be my friends if they were like that) but in certain "upscale" areas around here, so I know it happens.


Kris

[Melanie]

>A discussion that I might add started out with a
>link to an unsubstantiated post on a personal blog.
>

Hey now, don't start attacking me just b/c people didn't jump on your bandwagon.

And, perhaps I read it wrong, but it was that woman's account of what happened to HER daugther. Not a 'she said that he said,' type of thing.

[Melanie]

>A discussion that I might add started out with a
>link to an unsubstantiated post on a personal blog.
>

Hey now, don't start attacking me just b/c people didn't jump on your bandwagon.

And, perhaps I read it wrong, but it was that woman's account of what happened to HER daugther. Not a 'she said that he said,' type of thing.

[Melanie]

>I've got to say I'm a little mystified at the anger being
>lofted at AG over this. (I've been reading about this on a few
>other boards too.)

For me it's not about how costly they are or the marketing genius they've become. I just don't want to support a place that would, without apology (and if they make one I take it all back) be so incredibly unkind to a little girl.

Since I completely by accident stumbled upon the story and likely would not have seen it otherwise, I thought I'd share it with others who are likely to make such a purchase.

[Melanie]

>I've got to say I'm a little mystified at the anger being
>lofted at AG over this. (I've been reading about this on a few
>other boards too.)

For me it's not about how costly they are or the marketing genius they've become. I just don't want to support a place that would, without apology (and if they make one I take it all back) be so incredibly unkind to a little girl.

Since I completely by accident stumbled upon the story and likely would not have seen it otherwise, I thought I'd share it with others who are likely to make such a purchase.

[madelinesmom]

Oh, my God!!! I am not "attacking" anyone, I actually did go and read the blog, the entire blog, the comment was made by many of the responders to the post. I in no way was attacking you post, the link to the blog, or the woman's account of what she said happened to her daughter. I am sure she was offended, if it actually happened. My only point is that many times there are items that circulate around the internet that are made by people who don't like the company for many reason, a disgruntled employee, a customer who was treated poorly, etc. I was simply noting that the issues with my post appear to be the topic not the content.

Again, I apologize for any "attack" that you felt. I assure that it was unintended.

Jane
Madeline 1/20/03
Emily 11/29/05
http://b4.lilypie.com/l3-em6/.png
http://b1.lilypie.com/-FG1m6/.png

[madelinesmom]

Oh, my God!!! I am not "attacking" anyone, I actually did go and read the blog, the entire blog, the comment was made by many of the responders to the post. I in no way was attacking you post, the link to the blog, or the woman's account of what she said happened to her daughter. I am sure she was offended, if it actually happened. My only point is that many times there are items that circulate around the internet that are made by people who don't like the company for many reason, a disgruntled employee, a customer who was treated poorly, etc. I was simply noting that the issues with my post appear to be the topic not the content.

Again, I apologize for any "attack" that you felt. I assure that it was unintended.

Jane
Madeline 1/20/03
Emily 11/29/05
http://b4.lilypie.com/l3-em6/.png
http://b1.lilypie.com/-FG1m6/.png

[maestramommy]

Well, either the stylist wasn't using a lot of common sense, or the store didn't do the training right. I'm sure it must've occured to them that some kids would show up with a non AG doll. If that was how they planned to handle every such incident, it's just rather insensitive, y'know?

But I agree, this is probably not AG general policy. As I read down many of the comments, AG usually has very good CS, although you might have to speak to the manager if there's a problem.

[maestramommy]

Well, either the stylist wasn't using a lot of common sense, or the store didn't do the training right. I'm sure it must've occured to them that some kids would show up with a non AG doll. If that was how they planned to handle every such incident, it's just rather insensitive, y'know?

But I agree, this is probably not AG general policy. As I read down many of the comments, AG usually has very good CS, although you might have to speak to the manager if there's a problem.

[crayonblue]

Jane,

For whatever it's worth at this point, I agree with you. :)

I really want to buy AG dolls for my girls. The Spanish doll is adorable and my MIL gave Lauren a huge collection of the books. But, I'll look elsewhere.

[tiapam]

Sorry to hijack, but I saw the Just Like You dolls in the catalog and they all have long hair! How can a short haired girl get a Just Like You doll if they all have long hair? Strange.

-Pam

DD - Two years old!

[deborah_r]

> I have yet to see American Girl fruit
> snacks.

*snort* LOL! Loved this!

But believe it or not, they do have Lego fruit snacks! We bought some - they were yummy! :)

[emilyf]

I agree. The story is terrible, and I'm sure the mom was (rightfully!) furious, but some of it sounds maybe a bit embellished-especially the comments from the other moms. Even if it is totally true, it does seem a bit unfair to judge an entire company based on the actions of one low level employee.
Emily mom of Charlie born 11/02 and Zoe born 9/05

[saschalicks]

This whole thread confuses me.

I have boys if they want an AG fine, but I have yet to get there. Anyway what happened to this little girl is bad, but that doesn't make AG product or corporation bad. Maybe they learned a lesson to make it very clear that they only allow AG dolls to get their hair done. Maybe, it never occurred to them it would be an issue. The girl who made her feel bad and the mom's who made comments are the ones that should be ashamed of themselves.

As for the post about Girls Inc. It took me a LONG time to get why it was even in this post. I guess I failed to see the relevance to the original post.

[crayonblue]

I think Jane was just giving another reason to boycott American Girl. Not a reason that everyone agrees with but a reason some do.

[C99]

>>That said, this was a huge PR blunder on the part of the
>>stylist.
>
>Okay, this kind of makes me laugh. I'm sure that the stylist
>isn't making more than $7-8/hour, and PR is hardly their
>strong suit (or they'd be making a whole lot more money
>working in PR). Every company has bad apples, and to boycott
>a whole company based on the attitudes of one the most junior
>employees in the company just doesn't make sense to me.
>
>Not that what happened to the little girl was right at all,
>but shouldn't this be put in perspective??

Yes to this. I'm still mulling over how I feel about AG in general and whether I want to allow my DD to be an AG consumer, but really, as awful as the stylist was as reported in the blog, who here hasn't had a snotty customer service experience with just about any company?!?

[Jeanne]

ITA with both comments above. I just don't get it. I'm not against it. Everyone values things differently so I don't have much of an opinion on spendy vs. cheaper dolls. I wouldn't boycott a company because of enforced branding but I also wouldn't spend that much on a doll.

I just find that I can buy a cheap $10 doll and make up a story just as easily as AG. I don’t need them to create this for me. Is my DD going to know the difference? Nope. She's only going to learn that there's a difference when other girls tell her there is one because their parents value that kind of marketing and buy it. I don't think bad of people who buy this kind of marketing. I have my own preferences for brands as well. It's a balance between branded vs. non-branded and I hope to have far more influence for the values that my girls have for things than how they are marketed to.

Just because a company markets to my kid doesn't mean they are evil. I control the purse strings and instill the importance of identification. It’s only going to get harder as they age but I hope to be able to teach them the importance of lining their own pockets instead of buying into the hype of things that aren’t quite as important as others make it out to be – to value quality over hype and make those economic choices carefully.

[michellep]

Does anyone else find these types of mommy/daddy blogs a little disturbing? Does Etta's "public humiliation" need to be made even more public so she can be forever known as the girl with the fake AG doll? I know these types of blogs are pretty popular, Dooce seems to be the great grandmother of them all and maybe they're just the Erma Bombecks of today, but turning this story into public theater so that AG might lose some money seems like a misguided reaction to the situation. Some of the comments on the blog bother me too. One poster claims she's going to throw away all her daughter's AG books, even though they don't own any dolls! That's so sad.

-M

[hwin708]

Huh. Well, it is clearly a pretty crappy thing to do to a child, so I am pretty appalled about that. I can't even really agree with the PPs about this being one bad apple in terms of customer service, because it would seem to me that such a thing would be a very clear cut corporate policy. It's hard to imagine this never came up in training. It seems like one of the first things they would cover - what to do about non-AG dolls. And it's even harder to imagine they said to style the doll just as you would an AG doll, and this stylist decided on her nasty lonesome to take a stand against a 6 year old.

That being said - I do own an American Girls doll. Coincidentally, it is for the exact reason being debated above. I was tired of looking at dolls, ready to buy anything just to stop looking, and I read something - on here I believe - talking about AG association with a pro-choice organization, and there being a boycott, and I bought one. Decision made. I'm perfectly happy to have my money potentially going to an organization that supports women's reproductive rights. Certainly happier than I would be buying a Bratz doll, which I feel sends a far more dangerous message (not that I'm judging those who do. Lord knows, more than a few of those dirty creatures have snuck their way through my door).

I don't really connect this party place at all to the dolls, though. I don't live in NY, so won't be taking my child there. I also don't take her to the Build-a-Bear things. I'm baffled by the thought of a party that is just a shopping trip. If anyone is getting one of those, it'll be me! So I guess for me, I wouldn't go there to begin with. This kind of customer service is just the icing on the cake. But I don't really connect it to the company or the product.

[squimp]

I totally agree. Especially about the doll eyes. Something about their faces are creep me out, and now I'm keeping my fingers crossed that DD will never want one.

If she does, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it, like so many other bridges. (this week it's high heeled dress up shoes. if anyone cares, I caved on that :))

[kijip]

Actually, support for Girls Inc is one reason for me to consider purchasing an American Girls product. I have witnessed the Girls Inc program first hand for years and have nothing but positive things to say about it.

[kijip]

> I just think
>it's plain crappy and inappropriate to use little girls to
>raise money for any organization, no matter what their stance.
> Don't market your stuff to 6 year olds and use their money to
>support your cause! That's just wrong. I just don't think
>children's products should be used in a political
>environment.

Girls Inc is a bona fide 501 c 3 that teaches girls a lot about confidence and life. Its main objective is not political. It is not involved in political lobbying. That is part of being a 501 c 3.

I don't think I have to remind anyone here that businesses are a very large part of the funding equations for charities. Mattel gave them a donation, which is a tiny fraction of their profit and a small potion of Girls Inc revenue. Mattel must give to dozens, if not hundreds or even thousands of other charities, just like most companies of that size. The percentage of the selling price of a companies product that might go to their charitable efforts is an all but meaningless portion of the price. If foundation giving was not a valid or needed part of a marketing and business plan, they would not do it. Most of them do, so it clearly has economic benefit to them. Also, once a company earns their revenue, the money is not the consumers. It is the company's. It is their prerogative to give some of it away, which they do for various reasons including marketing and good will. Certainly people can base their purchasing decisions on if they support the same things as the company but it would be nice if people researched the whole charity before labeling it in one way or another. There is clearly more than one way to look at the same charity. Some people might look at my organization and say we "condone single parenthood", while many others look at it and go "wow, that is really great work".

[madelinesmom]

Katie,

Just so you don't go out and start buying really expensive dolls... After some further research I posted that they severed ties with the organization at the end of 2005... Sorry...

I hope you get the humor in this post, this is totally how I mean it...

Jane
Madeline 1/20/03
Emily 11/29/05
http://b4.lilypie.com/l3-em6/.png
http://b1.lilypie.com/-FG1m6/.png

[MartiesMom2B]

I boycott Dominos b/c I think their pizza tastes horrible. ;) I don't agree with their founder's political views either.

-Sonia
Mommy to Martie & Mei

[KBecks]

LOL! Well said.

[bunnisa]

Personally I'm more sickened by the comments of the moms in line than the remarks of one insensitive hairdresser. I can't believe the arrogance and heartlessness!!!

If that had happened in front of me I would have left, but not until after I spoke with the manager on the little girl's behalf.

...blessed wife and mama to two & one due this summer!

"And children are always a good thing, devoutly to be wished for and fiercely to be fought for."
-Justin Torres

[carryingandstrollingabout]

I'm recently back from taking my 2 daughters to American Girl Place in NYC. So just jumping in with my 2cents,nothing that hasn't been said before, but...

First of all, yes, that is horrible. No one should ever hurt a child's feelings. An employee of a store catering to children must especially never hurt a child's feelings. American Girl itself is responsible for training staff to handle such situations so that no child ever gets hurt feelings. They need to make this right from their training department throughout their organization.

But beyond that...

I read the blog and the writer never closes the loop about what ended up happening. Did she ever contact American Girl corporate customer service? Did they try to make it right or tell her to take a hike? I'm sure everyone who has read this saga would like to know what happened in the end.

Most important: That mother set that poor little girl up for a fall! And the mom of the little girl she went with! How could any mom do something so heartless!

American Girl does not portay itself as a toy or doll store. It portrays itself as American Girl. Everything about it is about American Girl. I still have the song running through my head (I like your sparkle...glad to be an American Girl). There is nothing unAmerican Girl about the place. It is obvious that the store is about American Girl dolls only. Even a 3 year old can see that. I brought my 3 year old who brought a Barbie with her for the trip--which immediately went into my purse when we walked into the store, because clearly Barbie is irrelevant at American Girl. She certainly wouldn't have expected any services or products on site for Barbie.

Why in the world would a mom send a child into American Girl--with another mother and another child no less (I wouldn't want to be in that position--bringing another child along with my daughter who then gets set up by her mother to be majorly upset)--to have a service done to any doll--no matter from where, no matter what the price of the doll--that wasn't the store's own product, unless they advertised that they work on any kind of doll.

It's perfectly logical and reasonable that American Girl would only styling American Girl doll hair (though finding a way to graciously and politely conveying that without hurting feelings--they need to work on this clearly). Doll hair is different on different manufacturers, and it is highly likely that they can't do their signature styles that the girls can choose from the book on different lengths or types of doll hair in general and have it come out right. It is perfectly reasonable not to make hair styling open to all dolls in general, but only to American Girl dolls. Certainly no one would expect them to style the Barbie heads, even though they share a parent company and both types of dolls have good hair. These probably are not beauticians who went to beauty school and who can do anything to any kind of hair. These people were probably trained to do certain hair styles on American Girl doll hair. My daughter got the hair style kit/book/dvd and I'm working on the styles, and I don't know if I could do them on any doll. The hair would have to be similiar in length and texture.

So why would a mom send a little girl along to the store with a non American Girl doll, with someone else's mother to manage the situation, and expect it to work out just fine? She set her daughter up. Even if the doll was a favorite doll and imitates the American Girl look. The writer's blog styles herself as "One of those horrible mothers." This woman prides herself on not following best practices. It sounds to me that she expected everyone to make exceptions--and didn't even accompany her daughter herself, to make sure it worked out happily.

I'm also having trouble believing the reports of the other moms, simply because I have faith in moms in general. Even the bitchiest of women won't be mean to a child when they have a daugther themselves. Mabye one would, but certainly not a whole line of moms. And as for all the comments about being poor and the moms saying her daughter probably couldn't afford a doll--I don't believe it. Everyone knows AmericanGirl is way overpriced and I don't think any of us are gloating that we can afford it. More like we're licking our wounds and not buying ourselves something to make up for treating our daughters. I read all that as hostile attitude.

So, I'll share our customer service experience. We bought a doll for my 3 year old, and the sales lady asked if she'd like to carry it out of the box, unwrapped it nicely, packed up the box and handed the doll politely to my daughter. Very nice.

We had a product problem. I bought a clothing accessory kit that was missing 2 items out of 7. I emailed the company, and they are sending a complete replacement accessory kit, plus refunding the difference between the full price I paid and the internet sales price. They made it right. Customer service seems good.

So I'd like to see the self-styled "One of Those Horrible Moms" talk with corporate customer service and then hear back what happened. Is she just complaining on the internet, or going to make them aware of their customer service failings and have them fix it both for her daughter and future customers?

I really like all that American Girl stuff for my daughters. The price is brutal, but I'm trying to get over that.

Whew I write a lot!

[kcandz]

I will defend the mom, because I am so tired in general of "it is the mom's fault" bashing that seems to end up happening because simply loving one's child doesn't always seem to be "enough" by standards in this culture.

The writer mom clearly stated she checked the web site and it said something to the effect of "dolls" and not specific language of "American Girl dolls." I would do the exact same thing in her place. And I would take that language at face value. If it said "American Girl dolls" I might reconsider sending my child and her doll to the outing. But the comments on her blog post and elsewhere that say something to the effect of "It is all the mother's fault! She didn't call to confirm!". I would never think to call the store after reading the web site. Who wants to deal with trying to get through all the automated menus to talk to a person? And what if a person on the phone said it was fine, the girl brought the doll and the incident happened anyway? Is it clueless or naive at best to think a store called American Girl Place is interested in all dolls? Most certainly. Does that make a "Horrible Mom"? I hope not. I have done plenty a clueless thing that has had repercussions for my little one that I regret.

Who knows what happened with the other moms in line. The writer herself wasn't there so it is second hand.

When I'm advocating for my child I get quite passionate. Some might think irrational. Picture Dumbo's mom. If I were the blogging equivalent of Dumbo's mom, I'm not particularly interested in presenting a journalistically objective approach to all matters. I'm outraged for my child's disappointment and lost forever bit of innocence.

She may be naive, she may be exaggerating, but I will side with a mother advocating for her child, even in a clunky and public way, over a company any day. Does that mean I am boycotting American Girl if for some reason I have a potential to be purchasing their products in the future? I doubt it. Anyone can have a bad customer service experience and the merchant is otherwise fine. But that's just me. I boycott for other reasons. And I strongly believe we should not judge other mothers who act out in defense of their children against the small cruelties in life.

[cstack]

>I agree. The story is terrible, and I'm sure the mom was
>(rightfully!) furious, but some of it sounds maybe a bit
>embellished-especially the comments from the other moms.

Having encountered *many* moms like this, I totally buy it. I encountered them as a child and as a mother. I've seen my daughter get treated this way and I've seen other kids get treated this way. Some people out there are just like that. Unfortunately, they seem to breed the same ignorance and insensitivity in their children.

[kijip]

ROTFLMAO. Thanks Jane!

I have a son who has a doll that he loves and I don't see him needing another anytime soon, :)

I don't think they severed ties with them so much as the sponsorship agreement ended. Most companies rotate through the charities they support so as to generate maximum goodwill for their brand.