Gwen is an American Girl.
When I was growing up the American Girl series was a staple of my bookshelf.
My favorite book was Molly Saves the Day, which was about summer camp and an epic Capture the Flag game. I owned the entire Kirsten series as well as the Felicity series and a few Samantha books*. I remember the glossy catalogs that came to our house full of dolls and accessories; but I was never very interested. I just liked the stories.
Now, the American Girl company is much much bigger. I went to visit the American Girl Place in Chicago a few years ago, and ate in their restaurant. We were provided with dolls to sit with us at the table as we sipped pink lemonade. I was astounded as we toured the rest of the building to find out that you can now pay to have your doll's hair done, or get her ears pierced.
Perhaps it is because of the huge expanse of the corporation that a great deal of controversy surrounds Gwen, a pretty blond doll who is... homeless.
Apparently Gwen has been around since January, but a recent NY Post story has brought the doll new attention. My favorite back-and-forth debate has been taking place in the comments section of the article posted by ParentDish.com.
Parents are debating everything from whether or not the company should be donating money to homeless shelters for every sale of the doll, to the nature of what homelessness is.
Personally I don't care to comment on whether or not Gwen should be more "raggedy," or whether she's "truly" homeless according to the details of the book she appears in.
I think $95 is an outrageous amount of money to spend on a doll whether it's "homeless," or not which might be why I never owned a Molly. The irony that no homeless child could probably ever own such an expensive toy is just a bit of added insult.
However, The American Girl corporation isn't marketing Gwen as "homeless," they are just marketing her as a character from one of the books. They are not obligated to give money to a homeless shelter or healthcare program from "Gwen" sales any more than they are obligated to donate money to the African American History Museum every time they sell an Addy doll. It's just not logical.
As for the social implications of the very existence of the doll, I haven't made up my mind yet.
One one hand, the book "Chrissa Stands Strong," (and by extension, the Chrissa and Gwen dolls) teach young girls that they should reach out to everyone across gender, race and class lines. On the other hand, do they send the message, as one reader pointed out, that we should just accept that some people have and some have not? Do they dull the thirst for justice that we should be instilling in our youth by saying 'it's not so bad that Gwen is homeless'?
I don't have these answers, but I suspect that more good than harm comes from inspiring young girls to reach out and help others. And although the message is a tad moralizing and overly-simplistic, it's not a bad message, and it is certainly a great jumping off point for discussion in the home about bigger and more complex issues.
So if parents are really worried about the message is sends to pay $95 for a doll who represents a character who wouldn't be able to afford a school lunch, then they should be trying in other ways to instill a sense of social justice in their children. Talk with your children about their ideas and opinions. Have your kids come with you to buy a toy for a gift drive at church or temple or the Y. Or let them pick out the cans from your pantry for food donations. Bring them with you when you drop off gently used clothing at Salvation Army.
But don't blame a toy company for doing just what they set out to do.
Showing posts with label homeless class. Show all posts
Showing posts with label homeless class. Show all posts
Monday, October 5, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Mark 9:40 : Revisiting Brianna Karp
On Sept. 11th I posted about Brianna Karp and her "New Face of Homelessness." I received a lot of feedback about my opinions, both in person and in writing.
The one that caused me the most distress was this one, from Matt.
Reading this makes me very sad indeed.
She does not hold all the answers and neither do you or I but she is a deeply caring and courageous woman who wishes to help all those who are experiencing homelessness. I know this for a fact.
She should be both encouraged and supported by those who claim to have similar goals, not attacked for any shortcomings she may have.
"The vast majority of homeless individuals....want to work, and look for work"
Somehow you turned that into:
"And to intimate that only white, formerly middle class people are willing to work "and look for work," is offensive. It was an innocent mistake on her part, but offensive."
That is a massive leap for which I can see no grounds whatsoever. She 'intimated' nothing. Now THAT is offensive.
I choose to believe that your heart is in the right place too so instead of whining at her, how about getting behind her and helping her make the most of what I'm sure you will agree is a huge opportunity to do some real good?
Firstly, I would like to publicly apologize if I have come across as having all the answers. Because I know that I don't. I would like to apologize to Bri and to any of her friends and loved ones who think this was some sort of attack on her, because it wasn't meant to be. As I said in my post, I agree with the sentiment of her heart being in the right place. I would never hope that my words would take away from her courage or her caring or the fact that she is using her position to do positive things in the world.
The things I said were not meant to be malicious, but if they were interpreted that way then there is something wrong with the way I presented them. And so I will try again.
Bri never says that only white, formerly middle class people want to work or look for work. So it was unfair of me to say that in my post.
She does say that the overwhelming percentage of homeless people are drug free, have no mental illness and are formerly middle class. She reports that this vast majority of homeless people are the ones who would like to join the work force. I apologize for adding the qualifier of "white;" it was inspired by her sentiment that "most homeless people are like me and manage to blend in relatively well. " It was not, as I see now, entirely relevant to the point at hand. Nor was it helpful in my argument. My issue was and is with the line in the sand being drawn between "bums" and "non bums." I think the rest of my original post covers how I feel about that.
But I think Matt's real point was that the issue is moot anyway. The real point is that if I truly am an advocate for the homeless, as I claim to be, why am I wasting time finding fault with someone else who claims the same?
I think it's because over the past two years I have become very sensitive towards the marginalization of any of the people I work with. To draw a line between types of homeless people is hurtful because some concepts are not mutually exclusive, and it paints an unflattering picture of many homeless individuals.
Sometimes love can make us blind. I saw Brianna's piece as a threat to my patients getting public support and in my haste to defend them I neglected to acknowledge that Brianna was simply also looking to gain public support for a group of people in need.
My post did not successfully express any gratitude towards Ms. Karp, which I definitely owe to her along with my apology. My point in my post was not to whine at Brianna, but rather to expound on her idea; to say, yes, yes you're right! And you are beautiful. You are homeless and strong, and there are others like you. And you are speaking up for them. Becoming their voice where they had none before. Please, don't stop....but please also don't forget those who have a different story.
I applaud Brianna for the work she does, and for the positive example she sets for people in every walk of life. As I continue my own advocacy for human rights, I know that anyone working under the banner of ending human suffering is on the same side that I'm on.
I'm glad Matt posted because it made me continue to revisit my old ideas. I don't think we should ever stop what I see as a necessary and ongoing peaceful dialogue that can take place amongst us all regarding the nature of our work. This dialogue should empower us and inspire us to move forward.
So with all of this in mind, I reiterate these hopes:
That all people without homes, not just those who fall into certain socially acceptable criteria, will have access to the assistance they require to live the lives they dream of for themselves.
That all human beings will recognize themselves in the joys and sufferings of others and be moved to help those in need of aid.
And that all those working for peace, justice and love may be united over common goals instead of divided over differences in their work.
Thank you, Matt for reminding me of that last one.
The one that caused me the most distress was this one, from Matt.
Reading this makes me very sad indeed.
She does not hold all the answers and neither do you or I but she is a deeply caring and courageous woman who wishes to help all those who are experiencing homelessness. I know this for a fact.
She should be both encouraged and supported by those who claim to have similar goals, not attacked for any shortcomings she may have.
"The vast majority of homeless individuals....want to work, and look for work"
Somehow you turned that into:
"And to intimate that only white, formerly middle class people are willing to work "and look for work," is offensive. It was an innocent mistake on her part, but offensive."
That is a massive leap for which I can see no grounds whatsoever. She 'intimated' nothing. Now THAT is offensive.
I choose to believe that your heart is in the right place too so instead of whining at her, how about getting behind her and helping her make the most of what I'm sure you will agree is a huge opportunity to do some real good?
Firstly, I would like to publicly apologize if I have come across as having all the answers. Because I know that I don't. I would like to apologize to Bri and to any of her friends and loved ones who think this was some sort of attack on her, because it wasn't meant to be. As I said in my post, I agree with the sentiment of her heart being in the right place. I would never hope that my words would take away from her courage or her caring or the fact that she is using her position to do positive things in the world.
The things I said were not meant to be malicious, but if they were interpreted that way then there is something wrong with the way I presented them. And so I will try again.
Bri never says that only white, formerly middle class people want to work or look for work. So it was unfair of me to say that in my post.
She does say that the overwhelming percentage of homeless people are drug free, have no mental illness and are formerly middle class. She reports that this vast majority of homeless people are the ones who would like to join the work force. I apologize for adding the qualifier of "white;" it was inspired by her sentiment that "most homeless people are like me and manage to blend in relatively well. " It was not, as I see now, entirely relevant to the point at hand. Nor was it helpful in my argument. My issue was and is with the line in the sand being drawn between "bums" and "non bums." I think the rest of my original post covers how I feel about that.
But I think Matt's real point was that the issue is moot anyway. The real point is that if I truly am an advocate for the homeless, as I claim to be, why am I wasting time finding fault with someone else who claims the same?
I think it's because over the past two years I have become very sensitive towards the marginalization of any of the people I work with. To draw a line between types of homeless people is hurtful because some concepts are not mutually exclusive, and it paints an unflattering picture of many homeless individuals.
Sometimes love can make us blind. I saw Brianna's piece as a threat to my patients getting public support and in my haste to defend them I neglected to acknowledge that Brianna was simply also looking to gain public support for a group of people in need.
My post did not successfully express any gratitude towards Ms. Karp, which I definitely owe to her along with my apology. My point in my post was not to whine at Brianna, but rather to expound on her idea; to say, yes, yes you're right! And you are beautiful. You are homeless and strong, and there are others like you. And you are speaking up for them. Becoming their voice where they had none before. Please, don't stop....but please also don't forget those who have a different story.
I applaud Brianna for the work she does, and for the positive example she sets for people in every walk of life. As I continue my own advocacy for human rights, I know that anyone working under the banner of ending human suffering is on the same side that I'm on.
I'm glad Matt posted because it made me continue to revisit my old ideas. I don't think we should ever stop what I see as a necessary and ongoing peaceful dialogue that can take place amongst us all regarding the nature of our work. This dialogue should empower us and inspire us to move forward.
So with all of this in mind, I reiterate these hopes:
That all people without homes, not just those who fall into certain socially acceptable criteria, will have access to the assistance they require to live the lives they dream of for themselves.
That all human beings will recognize themselves in the joys and sufferings of others and be moved to help those in need of aid.
And that all those working for peace, justice and love may be united over common goals instead of divided over differences in their work.
Thank you, Matt for reminding me of that last one.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
artificial life in the market, articficial life in the marketplace
Recently the Washington Post ran an article called The High Cost of Poverty. The author describes it as a "primer on the economics of poverty," and I recommend it as such.
The gist of the piece, if you haven't already clicked over and read it yourself, is that the more poor you are the more expensive day to day life is. It's not new news, but it's something those of us above the poverty line might not think about day to day.
Convenience costs money, and many of us (in the middle class) gladly pay small fees for an easier life. We drive to the grocery store rather than walk or take the T, because it's quicker. A person who does that has decided that the time and hassle saved by driving is worth the price of the gas.
Sometimes the choice isn't about convenience but rather about options. Perhaps there's a 7-Eleven on the corner, but driving to Trader Joe's is worth the gas money to you because you'll save overall on the price of individual items like milk. Plus the fruit will be fresher, and you have your choice of better meats.
But what if you didn't have a car? Or what if you couldn't afford that gas AND groceries AND the electric bill this month?
Every day, many people often have to make those choices. And more often than not they end up having to choose not only a less convenient option, but also a more expensive one.
And the expense comes not only in the form of money but in time, energy, quality of life and health.
An example used in the article is that people in higher income brackets often have direct deposit as an option whereas poorer people do not. They have to receive or pick up their check and then bring it to a cash checking location or a payday loan place. Just the other night I was waiting for a bus on Mass Ave near BMC at 11:30pm and an older woman was waiting with me. She worried aloud that the check cashing place might close before her bus came. Finally, she decided to take a cab.
The effort costs time (which could be allocated to other activities), energy (walking or taking public transportation), and money in transportation and check cashing fees.
The article also touches on quality of life costs, pointing out that most "affordable housing" options are in neighborhoods where day to day living can be hazardous. (Think the lyrics to "Skid Row" from Little Shop of Horrors. "Downtown, where the cabs don't stop/Downtown, where the food is slop, Downtown where the hopheads flop in the snow/").
However, a signficant cost of poverty, barely touched on in the article is health.
Nutritious food is expensive and hard to find. Unhealthy food is cheap and at almost every intersection in the form of a Dunkin Donuts or MacDonalds. Try telling a homeless patient with hypertension to cut salt out of their diet. Try telling a single mother working two jobs with two kids living at grandma's that she needs to spend money on fluoride rinse, or buy chicken that doesn't have any growth hormones added to it. Try that with food stamps.
Not to mention that when health problems do arise, not many people below the poverty line have "sick time," and most of them are working in occupations which are hazardous to begin with. I've seen countless patients of mine rush back to work with not quite healed limbs, wounds or infections because "I can't afford to be away from work this long." Or "if I don't go back today, my boss said I might not get my job back."
Every day I come in contact with many people who either can not or will not hold themselves accountable for their circumstances. Excuses abound for these individuals, and their problems are never their fault. (To be fair, some of these people are my homeless patients and some of these people are comfortably housed people I meet in other areas of my life. Laziness and immaturity span financial divisions, as do drugs abuse, ill advised lifestyle choices and apathy.)
I say this because I want to acknowledge that those people do exist.
But I want to stress here that not everyone who is poor was born that way, and not everyone poor got that way through their own choices.
The fact of the matter is that being poor costs a lot more than most people give any thought to. It takes a lot of strength, determination and will power to make ends meet when you live paycheck to paycheck. And our country is full of those people. And I'm not just talking about homeless people anymore. I'm talking about the lower class. They have homes, they have jobs, they aren't (necessarily) on drugs, but they're struggling. Because of unemployment maybe, or a physical handicap, or for whatever reason, but they struggle every day.
And I'm not sure how to make it better.
The gist of the piece, if you haven't already clicked over and read it yourself, is that the more poor you are the more expensive day to day life is. It's not new news, but it's something those of us above the poverty line might not think about day to day.
Convenience costs money, and many of us (in the middle class) gladly pay small fees for an easier life. We drive to the grocery store rather than walk or take the T, because it's quicker. A person who does that has decided that the time and hassle saved by driving is worth the price of the gas.
Sometimes the choice isn't about convenience but rather about options. Perhaps there's a 7-Eleven on the corner, but driving to Trader Joe's is worth the gas money to you because you'll save overall on the price of individual items like milk. Plus the fruit will be fresher, and you have your choice of better meats.
But what if you didn't have a car? Or what if you couldn't afford that gas AND groceries AND the electric bill this month?
Every day, many people often have to make those choices. And more often than not they end up having to choose not only a less convenient option, but also a more expensive one.
And the expense comes not only in the form of money but in time, energy, quality of life and health.
An example used in the article is that people in higher income brackets often have direct deposit as an option whereas poorer people do not. They have to receive or pick up their check and then bring it to a cash checking location or a payday loan place. Just the other night I was waiting for a bus on Mass Ave near BMC at 11:30pm and an older woman was waiting with me. She worried aloud that the check cashing place might close before her bus came. Finally, she decided to take a cab.
The effort costs time (which could be allocated to other activities), energy (walking or taking public transportation), and money in transportation and check cashing fees.
The article also touches on quality of life costs, pointing out that most "affordable housing" options are in neighborhoods where day to day living can be hazardous. (Think the lyrics to "Skid Row" from Little Shop of Horrors. "Downtown, where the cabs don't stop/Downtown, where the food is slop, Downtown where the hopheads flop in the snow/").
However, a signficant cost of poverty, barely touched on in the article is health.
Nutritious food is expensive and hard to find. Unhealthy food is cheap and at almost every intersection in the form of a Dunkin Donuts or MacDonalds. Try telling a homeless patient with hypertension to cut salt out of their diet. Try telling a single mother working two jobs with two kids living at grandma's that she needs to spend money on fluoride rinse, or buy chicken that doesn't have any growth hormones added to it. Try that with food stamps.
Not to mention that when health problems do arise, not many people below the poverty line have "sick time," and most of them are working in occupations which are hazardous to begin with. I've seen countless patients of mine rush back to work with not quite healed limbs, wounds or infections because "I can't afford to be away from work this long." Or "if I don't go back today, my boss said I might not get my job back."
Every day I come in contact with many people who either can not or will not hold themselves accountable for their circumstances. Excuses abound for these individuals, and their problems are never their fault. (To be fair, some of these people are my homeless patients and some of these people are comfortably housed people I meet in other areas of my life. Laziness and immaturity span financial divisions, as do drugs abuse, ill advised lifestyle choices and apathy.)
I say this because I want to acknowledge that those people do exist.
But I want to stress here that not everyone who is poor was born that way, and not everyone poor got that way through their own choices.
The fact of the matter is that being poor costs a lot more than most people give any thought to. It takes a lot of strength, determination and will power to make ends meet when you live paycheck to paycheck. And our country is full of those people. And I'm not just talking about homeless people anymore. I'm talking about the lower class. They have homes, they have jobs, they aren't (necessarily) on drugs, but they're struggling. Because of unemployment maybe, or a physical handicap, or for whatever reason, but they struggle every day.
And I'm not sure how to make it better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)