Blog Archives

Logan the American Girl boy doll, continued.

2/28/2017

I am going to take my time figuring out the cultural meaning of American Girl's introduction of a boy character doll, because it is hard to interpret until the consumer response is clear. After all, I don't create the meaning, nor is the meaning inherent in the packaged and advertised product.

Last week I did an interview with Kathryn Luttner of Campaign US, about Logan, and it was published yesterday. It's quite interesting, since she writes for an industry audience. I mentioned at the end of the interview that we'd be discussing Logan in my Fashion and Consumer Culture class, she was curious about what my students would have to say. Most of the discussion was more of a review of Grant McCracken's theory of meaning transfer from culture to consumer via consumption objects, so it isn't particularly relevant. But here is the interesting part:

Predictably, the male students (most in their early twenties) said they had never played with dolls. This is in contrast with my daughter (b. 1982) and son's (b. 1986) cohort, who played with boy Cabbage Patch Kids and My Buddy.

We also had fun analyzing the CPK boy description from the 1993 J.C. Penney catalog.

"Ruff 'n Tuff" play pal for boys. Dressed in non-removable play clothes". I pointed out that the earlier versions could be undressed and dressed. One discussion group decided that boys would certainly be harmed if they undressed a "boy" doll and discovered he had no penis.

If a boy doll has no penis, he is not a boy and can not use men's bathrooms in conservative jurisdictions. If he does have a penis, and his clothes are not removable, his masculinity is like "a tree falling in a forest" with no one to hear. If his clothes can be removed (penis or no penis) he is encouraging cross-dressing and possibly homoerotic sexual curiosity. Poor American Girl! Caught between a rock and a hard place!

5 Comments

The half-size mystery solved

2/22/2017

8 Comments

As mysteries go, this will never enjoy a BBC production. After all, it features no bodies, no stolen jewels, and no charismatic detective. Just an aging professor, dressed in well-worn L.L. Bean basics, trying to figure out what happened to the women's clothing range formerly known as "half sizes".

Sears, Roebuck & Company Spring 1970 catalog.

Half sizes were designed for "mature figures" -- women with fuller, lower busts, waists that were larger in proportion to bust and hips than "Misses" sizes, and shorter from neck to waist than "Misses" or "Women's" figures. Half sizes were seldom sleeveless, and the sleeve seam and upper arm were roomier. Skirts were usually longer than other size ranges. Shoulders were more rounded. In other words, half sizes were for postmenopausal women. Until they disappeared in the late 1980s.

Of course, I mean that the size range disappeared, not the women for whom it had been desired. Half Sizes were replaced by Women's Petite.

I am still tracking down the exact change in standards, but it is clear that the dimensions and proportions changed, not just the name.

Sears, Roebuck & Company, Fall, 1988 catalog.

So what? Why should anyone care?
Here's the thing. If sizes associated with age (half sizes) do not exist, women over fifty must select clothing from the remaining size ranges based on the size, shape and proportion of their bodies. This sounds like a good thing, but there's this reality: we are not all Helen Mirren. We are also not 20-something plus-size models. Some of look like this, or will, if we live long enough:

Figure from Margaret Swisher Larmour, “A Study of Body Measurements Relating to the Fit of Clothing for 65 to 74 Year Old Women,” 1988.

And so, I wonder, how did the elimination of half sizes change the ways in which older women see themselves? As baby boom women age, what options will we have, and and what will we choose?

8 Comments

First thoughts about Logan, the American Girl Boy doll

2/16/2017

You probably have heard about Logan, the American Girl Boy Doll. I've had a couple of media inquiries but managed to divert them to Elizabeth Sweet, whose work on toys and gender is much more appropriate.

But I do have thoughts.

My first thought when I heard the news was "Are they going to change the name of the company?"

My second thought was "Is he anatomically correct, or is his gender constructed by his hair and clothing?"

This is pertinent because for younger children (up to around 6 or 7) gender is perceived as impermanent, and based on clues such as clothing and hair. Logan is a boy because he dresses like a boy.

My third thought was "Hmm! He has the same face as the girls dolls, but with closed lips instead of parted lips! What does that say about expectations of gendered behavior or expression?"

My fourth thought was "Assuming the answer to my second question is that he is not anatomicallly correct, which bathroom would he have to use in North Carolina?"

My last thought was, if I had Logan and another AG doll, there would be cross-dressing.

And here is someone else's thought. It's a trick of the enemy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/02/16/why-this-pastor-believes-american-girls-boy-doll-is-a-trick-of-the-enemy/?utm_term=.2a14e2a2109b

Logan the American Girl boy doll, continued.

The half-size mystery solved

First thoughts about Logan, the American Girl Boy doll

Jo Paoletti

Archives

Categories