I take the stand that unless I am a stockholder, it is not my place to say how they spend their money.  But I do vote with my dollars.  I do not join boycotts.  My decisions are my own to make and not to be dictated by someone else.

That's pretty tough, Gideon.

I've run across several of the 'American Girl' books and, in particular find their 'A Smart Girl's Guide to..." series quite informative and helpful to preteen / teen girls.

I've a little sister who I've bought the books 'A Smart Girl's Guide to Middle School' and 'A Smart Girl's Guide to Friends' (or something like that).

Though I may buy those books again at some point should I have another young female relative (or, ack...even...a daughter) I'll be keeping my American Girl purchases at that level due to their poor decision to help fund pro-abortion groups.

What makes taking a pro abortion stance a poor decision? Late term abortion, sans medical need, is bad. However, if it's early on - there's no human there. A blob of cells does not a person make.

I'm a proud parent, and I think a woman ultimately needs to have that choice. I know the church needs more dupes, and the army needs more grist for the mill, but there's no rational reason to rule out abortion.

Matt, are you a doctor or scientist? Because I don't know when life starts. When does the soul begin? I prefer to err on the side of caution in this matter. On the topic of boycotts, they just don't work.

Gid, is it the company that supports those organizations or it is individual members or the CEO who is making those contributions?

Gid, is it the company that supports those organizations or it is individual members or the CEO who is making those contributions?

To tell the truth, I wasn't sure, so I had to look it up. American Girl, Inc. has bracelets for sale in it's catalog with the slogan "I CAN". The profits from these bracelets go to fund Girls, Inc., a group that looks good on the surface, but which, after a closer look (www.girlsinc.org ...look at the position papers on sexuality), takes strong positions on issues suech as sexuality and women in the workplace. Among many other things (encouraging parents to "debunk the myth of Prince Charming" [read: teach them that traditional gender roles are unacceptable, even if they DESIRE those roles]), it advises parents of preteen girls to encourage them to explore their bodies with their best friends to develop healthy sexuality.

In defense of the company, thie group looks VERY good on the surface. But a closer inspection of the group reveals a philosophy that, in my not at all humble opinion, is rotten to the core.

I'm not supporting the policies of Girl, Inc. and I've not looked it up but going by what Gid stated, why couldn't "debunk(ing) the myth of Prince Charming" be in a manner of girls being strong and identifying that they can do anything they set their minds to?

Why would it have to do with sexuality as in homosexuality (as this is what it sounds like)and not with girls being aware of themselves and their likes and dislikes?

While I too question the "it advises parents of preteen girls to encourage them to explore their bodies with their best friends to develop healthy sexuality."; why do that with a friend, isn't it more reasonable or normal to say explore their bodies by themselves or encourage the parents to speak openly to them about sexual development and other issues?

Remember in the past girls and women were not encouraged to be anything at all. There was only one place for them. And many countries still practice that belief today.

I think they should give the money to whomever they want. Just don't support them financially if you so choose.


I bought one of those dolls some years ago for my oldest girl who wanted one. Now she's older she wondered to me recently why she wanted that doll. Now my little one is facsinated by it (for now) but I won't be buying another one.

forever,

In my mind, it's about feminism vs. female supremacy. Unfortunately, the leaders of Girls, Inc. have chosen to go the route of female supremacy.

My opposition to the point about "debunking the myth of Prince Charming" is a minor, albeit fundamental one. You see, some girls WANT to grow up to be mothers and stay at home and raise their children. And they should be encouraged as strongly as those who want to be firefighters, police officers, career women, or any other career path. While they should do so without the notion of "Prince Charming", the concept, as it is written on the page made it pretty clear that it is important to teach girls they should "pay their own way", so to speak, and ot depend on a man.

The issue of sexuality is pretty disturbing. I want my girls to be confident and assured as they grow older, not to be sluts under a different name (yes, men can be sluts as well, and often are...but that's off topic for this particular discussion). I DON'T want them to be taught in any way that abortion is acceptable and OK (in defense of Girls, Inc, I will say that, before you delve into the "position papers", they simply encourage parents to engage in discussion with their girls about the moral rightness/wrongness of abortion, which is wholly acceptable; but a quick dissection of the position papers make the position of this particular organization clear. Knowing that these girls will be guided by individuals who hold this moral position makes it clear to me this is an organization i will NOT be supporting).

When educating my girls about the roles of women, I use my paternal grandmother as a model. In 1930, she held a MASTER'S degree, at a time when very few women even ATTENDED college. She had a variety of occupational opportunities available to her, yet chose raising her family as the most important of those opportunities. Of her 5 children, 3 were girls. All three of those grew to be women who, although they had their own careers and their own identities, never ignored the fact that their family was their foremost concern. One of those women went on to be a well respected minister, still another retired some 15 years back after spending many years as an educator. And all of their children grew up with healthy female role models.

In my mind, it's about feminism vs. female supremacy. Unfortunately, the leaders of Girls, Inc. have chosen to go the route of female supremacy.

I have to read that article you posted on the topic.



I do agree with what you say Gid. If these people at Girl, Inc. are not going to do it (empower girls) the right way then they shouldn't do it at all! I would not support a group like that too, extremism is never good in any area.


I do like the idea of empowering our girls (I'm glad that there are people out there with this concept other than parents) but not to the point of ignoring morals and not allowing them to make their own decisions.

My daughter (age 10) has two American Girl Dolls... lots of accessories, and a subscription to American Girl Magazine that is due to expire.

I debated sharing this with my daughter. Frankly, I thought she was too young to be burdened with a discussion about abortion and sexuality, among other things. In the end, I changed my mind. She'll hear it anyway, I'd rather it come from me. We talked about the company's support of Girls, Inc. We discussed the things that they (Girls, Inc) stand for. Together, we made a decision not to support the AGD company anymore financially, as a matter of principle, and sent a letter informing them of our intent.

This doesn't mean we're throwing her dolls away, or that she won't play with them anymore. It simply means that we will not purchase anymore AGC merchandise from this point out, unless and until they sever ties with Girls, Inc.

It's up to each of us to make a personal decision. This is one we feel strongly about. I don't presume to tell anyone else what to do... each of us must be convinced in their own mind.

A blob of cells does not a person make.

I am a walking blob of cells, care to abort me? I'm still developing...

I'm a proud parent, and I think a woman ultimately needs to have that choice.

I very much agree the choice needs to be preserved, I don't feel that our law needs to support that choice.

I welcome your thoughts, thanks Matt.

UPDATE: After dissecting the information from this organization, I have to admit that it disturbs me that American Girl would contribute money to them. I must note, though, that it took a considerable amount of digging past the "fluff" that Girls, Inc.'s PR specialists put together to find the true agenda. And I must concede that if I stopped at the "fluff", I would be inclined to contribute to this organization as well. It is possible that American Girl is unaware of the exact source of my concern; that of the various position papers of Girls, Inc's supporters, and so I feel a better tactic would be to research the issues that cause me concern and submit the finished product to the company, so they can understand, at least, the basis for concern. What they choose to do with it is up to them, but I think they should at least be aware of what they're dealing with.

As for our purchasing decisions, well, I'm not going to attempt to blackmail the company. But after I provide them with the information, we may consider different purchasing options.

I have boys. Never heard of these dolls or this company before..

Sounds like you're on top of it tho Gid....

A blob of cells does not a person make. I am a walking blob of cells, care to abort me? I'm still developing...

Devils advocate! Well done.  ON this and the other one.

Devils advocate!

Oh, no, Doc. Guy, I'm not playing, I am seriously pro-life...I thought you knew?

Thanks tho'!