|
Breaking the Doll's Back? Or Backing Down?
Pro-Life Action League, an extremist pro-life group, says that the corporation has backed down in the face of its complaints. The complaints seemed extenuated, but follow a pattern for the religious right. They centered on the notion the American Girl Dolls directed donations to Girls, Inc.,which, in turn, supports all girls, regardless of sexual orientation, approves of complete reproductive health education, and supports reproductive rights. American Girl Dolls and Girls Inc. swore they wouldn't back down. But the right-wing Biblically devout Concerned Women for America runs this blurb Victory in the Battle to Save American Girl Dolls! The Pro-Life Action League has announced victory in their boycott of American Girl Dolls. The company is backing away from its "I Can" campaign that supported the pro-abortion/pro-homosexual Girls, Inc. Instead, the company will launch a "Save Girlhood" campaign, to promote the preservation of girl's innocence. Pro-Life Action League declares on its website , that American Girl is ending its sales of "I Can" bracelets, which benefited Girls Inc. at "the earliest possible day they could end the program without losing face. No mention of an ending date for the program was ever made until the pro-life protest picked up steam." Pro-Life Action League reports: American Girl began de-emphasizing the "I Can" project within days of the League's first press release decrying the link with Girls Inc. Bath and Body Works, the only other outlet for purchasing the "I Can" bracelet, quit the project in late November. Ann Scheidler, spokesperson for the Pro-Life Action League said: "We are happy that American Girl is trying to win back our confidence. But we continue to be watchful." Did American Girls, owned by Mattel, cave in? Or did religious right girls let it be known that American Girl Dolls were holiday favorites, calling for a declaration of success and quick retreat? If American Girl let itself be swayed by a few press releases from the Pro-Life Action League, it's holding pretty low standards. Joseph Scheidler, founder of Pro-Life Action League, is one of the parties in a case currently being considered by the U.S.Supreme Court, Scheidler v. NOW. Pro-Life Action League, known for its aggressive blocking and harassment at abortion clinics, is trying to avoid paying a civil fine under racketeering laws for its intimidation. And it's also sad that, despite the obvious homophobia, the girl doll boycott never got the same attention in the gay community as Ford Motor Company's concession to AFA to drop ads in gay publications, a decision that Ford reversed when the gay community responded vigorously. You have to hope that it's a case of overload, and not a gender divide.
Breaking the Doll's Back? Or Backing Down? | 9 comments (9 topical, 0 hidden)
Breaking the Doll's Back? Or Backing Down? | 9 comments (9 topical, 0 hidden)
|
||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
print page
