Miss Polly Had A Dolly (That Kicks Kangaroo Arse)

Thanks to Hoyden About Town and Life in the Field Blog for the heads-up – I headed out to check out a new Australian doll for girls today:

The official Australian Girl Launch will be held this Saturday, November 8th, 9:30am at Toyworld, Subiaco, Western Australia.

Why would one bother making such a trip on a lovely Saturday morning? For the commercialisation of childhood, again? Actually, this particular approach to doll manufacturing touts the message of gender-role awareness and cultural-inclusiveness in regards to the toy industry, which was why Helen Schofield (the creator) wrote:

Australian Girl is fully Australian owned and endorses the work of Kids Free 2B Kids and Women’s Forum Australia. Through research and education regarding the sexualisation of children in the media, advertising and clothing industries these organisations promote psychological health and emotional well being of Australia’s children.

By the way, if you haven’t checked out the 2007 Women’s Forum Australia reference and research publication ‘Faking It‘, all about recent academic research on magazines, mass media, and the sexual objectification of women (in a rather nifty magazine format itself that parodies some of the more popular publications out there!), I strongly recommend it. Available on their site, here.

Before I post more pics of my attending the launch in Subiaco today, I should probably write to some of the research that’s being referred to. Back in my educational psych days, we did a lot of work investigating the influences upon children’s self-esteem – something that has carried onto even now with the research I’m helping with in secondary schools. Because most children wish to be accepted, particularly by their peers, they become highly focused on what to do, with whom and the ways that they differ in gender (Martin & Ruble, 2004). In the process of this, they develop what is called gender schemas – generalisations about what is ‘appropriate’ for them, such as the jobs held by men and women (Fagot, 1995).

Once these schemas are developed, and identify themselves as male or female, they tend to choose toys, indulge in activities and display behaviours that match the gender selected (Ruble & Martin, 1998). In a way, they have become ’sexist self-socialisers’ – developing those masculine or feminine attributes that are consistent with the self-image; in fact, it’s around eight or nine that they become more flexible about what’s appropriate but only to a certain extent (Levy, Taylor, & Gelman, 1995). Later in school, it’s found that girls often think themselves as good only in language arts (despite outperforming boys across a range of subjects, including maths, science and social studies), because that’s what they are ’supposed’ to be good at (Pomerantz, Altermatt, & Saxon, 2002)!

More recently in 2006, The Australia Institute’s report on the portrayal of young people and children in advertising was produced – ‘Corporate Paedophilia: Sexualisation of children in Australia‘. The report discusses the sexualisation of children and potential harm done by advertising.

If ‘being sexy’ is coined as a vital or necessary part of one’s identity, it runs the risk of discouraging other activities that promote cognitive development and indeed physical health – such as problem-solving, imaginative play and the wide variety of sporting activities that could tap into not only reducing future health risks but also expose children to healthy role-models. Therefore, one straightforward recommendation for parents is to buy and support companies that use child models (even in toys) that feature variation in their body shapes that more realistically portray young people (both males and females), in order to better encourage healthy body images.

In short, it’s social training by adults and peers, plus the child’s own cognitions about the world (including the influence of advertising), which tends to reinforce any biological predispositions regarding gender roles. This then creates gender roles that are the products of both nature and nurture.

What makes these new dollies so interesting to me then? Well, the dolls themselves look really quite appealing in comparison to the rows of Bratz dolls and Barbies that make up the back-side wall of the Subiaco shop for a start. A conversation with the shopkeeper revealed that despite the price tag (total cost is $99 Australian dollars and about $10 for additional accessories, like a little hair-brush in a box), she’d sold about ten of them today. The ones I found on display were mostly the Emily doll (wearing what I guess could be called an Australian bush-walking costume of shorts and a long-sleeved shirt and hiking boots).

Another thing I noticed was that the dolls’ boxes featured the words ‘Made In China’ on the side – which immediately raised some questions in my mind as to ‘why Australian design, Australian elements but overseas (particularly China and their reputation regarding labour standards) and I looked over the official site again:

Finding the best manufacturer was a challenge. This involved a search for many months to discover the world’s best. And yes, the best was found, in China, where 70% of the world’s dolls are made. There was no viable manufacturer in Australia. Helen and members of the Australian Girl™ team have visited this specialist factory in China on a number of occasions and inspected the plant and facilities which are clean and bright. The factory meets international manufacturing and labor standards.

The staff has good conditions, above average wages as well as full board and medical care, recreational facilities and 9 weeks holiday a year with 3 consecutive weeks holiday at Chinese New Year. They work 48 hours a week with long enough lunch breaks to take a nap! There are no children working at the factory.

The site goes on to say: ‘The higher cost option of a partial soft torso was chosen to enable a good look when clothing such as sun dresses are worn at the same time keeping a huggable feel.’ Which I thought was a pretty good strategy to take, considering my initial response when I saw the origin on the side of the box! Although I didn’t get to hold one myself (since they were all in boxes!), the dolls appeared to have very high-quality hair (a hair-net for Jas) and the costumes didn’t seem tacky at all, but well sewn.

I would strongly suggest checking out Hoyden About Town’s take on the production line – indeed as they write, ‘none of them are “sassy” or “foxy” or “hot”‘. They’re girl dolls, why should they be?

The site description has ‘Amy’ boasting that ‘I love sport, especially netball, soccer and football’ (mind, I was a little worried about how one said they didn’t like either English or Maths! One is a keen musician who wishes to become a doctor, I note. With only four dolls available, I guess it’s a little limiting).

In addition, the Hoydens raise the excellent point about the rather similar complexions and overall Anglicised features of the dolls – even from the look I got from the postcards, you can note a ’sameness’ in terms of cultural background:

The colours also look quite pale, so the non-white dolls do look a bit, well, white. From the cartoon illustrations, it seems clear that Jasmine is intended to be Asian (of Chinese origin?), and Amy is possibly Indigenous. Emily is white and blonde, and Belle is a pale, brown-eyed brunette.

Since they plan to have more produced and have another designer working on them, perhaps this is a factor that can be addressed in the future? Unfortunately, I don’t have any close young-female relatives to suggest getting one of these (age range is four and over), but I would say that their timing for the holiday season is very well done. Certainly a step in the right direction for making a difference.

Speaking of women making a difference – ooh yeah! Scientiae is out at See Jane Compute!!

Select References:
Donahoo, D (2007). Idolising Children. University of New South Wales Press Ltd. Sydney.
La Nauze, A and Rush, E (2006). “Corporate Paedophilia: Sexualisation of children in Australia”. Discussion Paper (90). The Australia Institute.
La Nauze, A and Rush, E (2006). “Letting Children be Children: Stopping the sexualisation of children in Australia”. Discussion Paper, (93). The Australia Institute.
Overington, C (2007). “Innocent seduction”. The Australian. February 7th. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20876,21183010-28737,00.html [Accessed 07/11/08].
Rush, E (2006). “Adult world must let girls be girls”. Sydney Morning Herald Online. October 10th. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/10/09/1160246068431.html [Accessed 07/11/08].

Tagged as: advertising, Australia, Australian girl, behaviour, blogs, cognition, dolls, females, feminism, findings, gender, males, nature and nurture, Psychology, research, role models, Science, sex, sexy, Skepticism, Skepticism and Gender, skeptics, smart, stereotypes, toys, women