-
sponsorship
On this morning’s Washington Post op-ed page, my friend Ruth Marcus made a similar point as your mother, Jessica, on the upside of Ty’s opportunistic marketing of dolls with “beautiful names.” The marvelous and sweet effigies of the president’s daughters indeed provide long overdue racially correct toys for little girls to be proud of. Citing the troubling psychology experiments of dark-skinned children choosing white dolls described in Brown v. Board of Education, Ruth thinks the inherent social service trade-off might be worth it. The manufacturer of Beanie Babies has again created a direct connection to the imagination of a new generation. Even in this belt-tightening moment, I’m sure the dolls are selling like crazy and even lifting the economy. I’m not offended by the actual toys and can imagine which little girls in my life I would enjoy giving them to. My fear is that if the first family is mined as a commodity, there will come a time when their worth is depleted. Right now the public wants to embrace them like a cuddly toy. It’s time to get off the stage and get back to school.
-
sponsorship
The saga continues with the Sasha and Malia dolls that Bonnie thought were inevitable and Nina thought would be more fun if they wore miniskirts and traveled in space. First a Ty spokeswoman claimed that the company avoids naming their dolls for "any particular living individual" and chalked up the release of Sweet Sasha and Marvelous Malia to serendipity ("Sasha and Malia are beautiful names" that "worked very well with the dolls we were making," she said). Now it looks like Marjorie's call for the elder Obamas to stand up for the girls' privacy has been answered; the first lady said through her press secretary that she feels "it is inappropriate to use young, private citizens for marketing purposes."
I'm all for protecting the girls' privacy as much as possible. But are they really private citizens? When Barack Obama brought his daughters on stage with him at campaign events, making them adorable little accessories for his Family Man ensemble, wasn't he making the choice to thrust them into the public eye? And when he writes open letters to them on their first day of school (which, as Emily pointed out, came off as fairly hollow and staged), doesn't he sacrifice some of the moral high ground in this debate over his daughters' privacy, some of his right to outrage when that privacy is breached?
It's tough, I'd imagine, to be the child of a celebrity. In the case of Suri Cruise or Shiloh Jolie Pitt, though, there was no choice; their parents were celebrities from a fairly young age, so any kids they had would necessarily grow up in the spotlight. With politicians, it feels a little different. Barack Obama didn't have to run for president. And no doubt when he decided to do so, one of the issues he talked through was whether it would be fair to Sasha and Malia (and for that matter, Michelle) to put them through that. Running for public office requires a pretty hefty ego—enough faith in yourself to think that your ability to make things better with a position of power override whatever damages you'll inflict on those around you, both from rampant attention from the media and splintered attention from yourself.
Do any of you moms hold it against him that he chose to go for it anyway, even though it would almost certainly make a "normal" childhood impossible for his daughters? Or is a selfless style of parenting just as damaging as one that could be labeled selfish? Being hounded by paparazzi and commodified by toy companies is bad, yes, but for all that, Sasha and Malia get to grow up with a front-row seat to the ultimate role models: a man and woman who put it all on the line because they thought they could make a difference in the world and were determined to take that as far as they could. Perhaps it's a good trade.
-
sponsorship
Sweet Sammi, these two girls are already America's sweethearts, and there is not a kid over 5 years old in this country who can't tell you which one of the president's daughters he or she likes best. J. Crew and the makers of Ty Girlz dolls are not the only retailers to take advantage of that. The commercialization of Sasha’s and Malia’s adorableness started the moment their dad was elected. The manufacturers of the dresses the girls wore to Grant Park instantly exploited the connection. I'm surprised www.sashaandmalia.com is not a Web domain for some savvy marketer yet. The Obamas cannot keep their daughters’ popularity in a bottle, and I don't know what their mother will do to protect them. Now that former White House cute kid Caroline Kennedy has an opening in her schedule, maybe she can come help Michelle Obama figure that out.
-
sponsorship
Turns out you don't need to live in the D.C. area to give your kids the joy of playing with Sasha and Malia, thanks to the latest in the mass of Obama-related merchandise: the "Sweet Sasha" and "Marvelous Malia" Bratz-like dolls manufactured by Ty (of Beanie Babies fame). As Amy Benfer wrote on Broadsheet:
This line shares the notorious Bratz dolls infatuation with the letter "z," visible lip liner and skimpy clothing of questionable taste ... Unfortunately, as a post at Packaging Girlhood points out, the dolls are part of the teen line and thus come complete with breasts, which seems a little odd in dolls named after two little girls who are now 7 and 10 years old. The poster at that site asks: "Couldn't they have just portrayed them as they are now, perhaps as two little girls with a dog and a leash?"
I agree that the plush (and womanly) depiction of the Obama girls is a bit unnerving. But equally upsetting to me are these descriptions on the site—not just for Sasha and Malia, but all the dolls. I'm old-school when it comes to kids' toys and favor ones without a prepackaged back story—the kind that require actual imagination to bring them to life. (Note: this theory has not been put into practice. I'm 24 and childless.) I find the American Girl dolls a little overbearing in their descriptions of each doll's interests and lives, but that's refreshing compared to the nonsensical blurbs on the Bratz site, which have to do entirely with clothes and appearance.
I played the "Which XX Factor writers have Ty Girlz dolls in their honor?" game, and here're the findings. They spelled your name wrong, Hanna, but you'll be happy to know that Hip Hannah, in her "pink tennies and white knee-high socks," is "the definition of cool!" The cheerleader Exciting Emily comes close to having your hair, Emily, but her eye color is a little upsetting. Apparently her "team colors (lavender and teal) really bring out the color of her eyes." Oh right. Her lavender and teal eyes. And the Sweet Sammi doll that I can only assume was named after me has a similar ocular malfunction. Clad in an orange hoodie, blue-eyed Sammi is also, apparently, benefiting from an outfit that "really brings out her eyes!"
I wonder how the Ty team would describe Molly, the bespectacled 1950s American Girl doll I grew up with. Obviously they'd do away with that pesky and fairly educational storyline about her dad being off at war. And I have a guess what they'd say about those wire-rim frames of hers.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?