It takes a little bit to get me worked up, but this article in the Boston Globe about the latest American Girl Doll ticked me off. In a nutshell, the doll's homeless, has a worn out mom and a dead-beat dad. It's dumb that Mattel would make a doll that's supposed to be homeless and then charge $95 for it. That's one thing, but to imply that her plight is her dad's fault. Not that I'm defending dead-beat dads, but why do we need to shove that issue into the arms of a little kid?

Here's the link:

http://www.boston.com/community/moms/articles/2009/10/05/marketing_homeless_chic_for_the_preschool_set/?plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:a0775500-d053-4486-a458-44af1213c278

This was the comment I left on the site:

"What an injustice to the homeless: Let's profit off your plight. And to add insult to injury, let's make fathers the scapegoat, by implying that it the dad that caused all of this. 

As a full-time stay-at-home dad with 5 kids, I just lined the kitty litter box with the new American Doll catalog.

If they wanted to raise awareness for social issues why not name her "Angel" and say that she likes to accompany her father on the weekends to a soup kitchen where she helps feed the less fortunate and play with homeless kids. And with every purchase of Angel, Mattel will donate a portion to organizations dedicated to helping homeless children. 

Hey, Mattel. Make a difference, instead of making fools of yourself. I guess nothing sells better than controversy. All I can picture is some homeless girl fogging up the window outside your Chicago storefront."

I plan on writing Mattel. http://corporate.mattel.com/contact-us/default.aspx