{"id":6839,"date":"2013-11-27T00:01:55","date_gmt":"2013-11-27T06:01:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/girlwpen\/?p=6839"},"modified":"2013-11-27T00:01:56","modified_gmt":"2013-11-27T06:01:56","slug":"off-the-shelf-goldieblox-builds-on-weak-foundation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/girlwpen\/2013\/11\/27\/off-the-shelf-goldieblox-builds-on-weak-foundation\/","title":{"rendered":"OFF THE SHELF: GoldieBlox Builds on Weak Foundation"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/b>My thanks to colleague Deborah Siegel<\/a> for starting off what has now become an even more complicated debate over the toy company GoldieBlox<\/a>.\u00a0 I\u2019ve been amazed \u2014 and disappointed \u2014 at the turning tide during the past few days.\u00a0 While GoldieBlox\u2019s Twitter feed implies the product is selling well, it\u2019s also clear they\u2019re now spinning into damage control.<\/p>\n

\"beastie-post\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Despite controversy over the product itself, everyone seems to agree that GoldieBlox took a clear misstep in their reappropriation of the Beastie Boys\u2019 song \u201cGirls.\u201d For one, the late Beastie Boys member Adam Yauch left specific instructions in his will that he never wanted his work used for advertising purposes.<\/a> \u00a0GoldieBlox claims that the song is parody, hence \u201cfair use,\u201d rather than copyright infringement.\u00a0 But, just to make their point,<\/a> they have initiated a lawsuit against the The Beastie Boys<\/a>, puzzling some by this preemptive strike and causing yet more rumors to swirl that they are simply after more publicity, no matter how negative. The Beastie Boys issued an \u201copen letter\u201d to GoldieBlox<\/a> in support of their product, but also clearly stating that the reappropriation wasn\u2019t to their liking.\u00a0 GoldieBlox, so far, appears to have refused comment.\u00a0 Last year, Jessica Valenti wrote about the group\u2019s \u201cfeminist turnaround,\u201d<\/a> and I\u2019ve wondered if founder Debbie Sterling thought for this reason the Beastie Boys might be sympathetic. \u00a0Whether she received bad legal advice, engaged in na\u00efve business practices, or this move was deeply calculated is hard to tell, but there\u2019s no doubt this development is further tarnishing the good will her company initially generated.<\/p>\n

Criticism has also been leveled at the company for its practices during the making of the commercial’s famous Rube Goldberg machine.\u00a0<\/a>\u00a0One point is simply\u00a0that its construction was unrealistic for the ages of the girls represented. \u00a0There has also been speculation that no women engineers were actually involved in its making and the “behind the scenes” videos<\/a> which they released online hardly showcases the girls featured having any agency in its construction<\/a>, despite the fact that none are models and are all supposedly initial testers of the product.\u00a0 GoldieBlox has disputed that the Rube Goldberg machine was made chiefly by male engineers, but in each of the \u201cbehind the scenes\u201d clips released women are conspicuously absent.<\/a>\u00a0 Here in L.A. where \u201cindustry talk\u201d is thick, more unscrupulous scuttlebutt has emerged about the sources of the commercial\u2019s filming which\u00a0has hardly helped the product\u2019s reputation.\u00a0 The tide has turned from those who zealously cheered the company on to a general sense of disappointment.<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=sfxHhTHcoTg<\/p>\n

Yet, what the whole product launch, from Kickstarter to present-day debacle has revealed is intriguing.\u00a0 One point of interest to me is how GoldieBlox\u2019s contention that they are taking originally misogynistic lyrics and \u2018subverting\u2019 them into a pro-girl message seems to parallel the larger critique of their toy, highlighting what some see as damaging short-sightedness purportedly used for greater gain.<\/p>\n

As Deborah writes, and many of our Brave Girls Want<\/a> colleagues have so articulately expressed is that GoldieBlox seems to have stepped backwards from what was first presented on their Kickstarter campaign<\/a>, where a very sincere Sterling talked about giving girls options beyond \u201cpinkifying\u201d STEM-related toys for the girls\u2019 aisle.\u00a0 When I first saw the campaign, I was excited.\u00a0 And I was hopeful, although there were things that concerned me. \u00a0For one, Sterling\u2019s essentializing view that her strategy came down to “one simple thing: boys like building and girls like reading.”\u00a0 Really? \u00a0This comment seemed like odd stereotyping from someone whose purpose is to break down a gendered divide.\u00a0 In an article last year about the product, her remarks about how girls \u201ccare about nurturing\u201d<\/a> also seemed suspiciously stereotypical.<\/p>\n

Sterling\u2019s casual remark might be at the root of where many (but not all) think her product went astray.\u00a0 She reiterates “every girl you know is so much more than a princess\u201d and in the now famed YouTube commercial the three young girls look painfully bored while passively watching three tiara-wearing and scepter-waving pink doppelgangers.\u00a0 This phrase \u201cmore than just a princess\u201d also bedecks the T-shirts the girls wear when they storm Toys \u2018R\u2019 Us in this video.<\/a><\/p>\n

\"Tshirt-1_medium\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Pivoting on the idea that all girls are told they are princesses, sold a \u201cprincess bill of goods\u201d (and, of course, actual goods), yet can be turned another direction seems to be where Sterling has staked her foundation.\u00a0 Her inclusion of princess-themed material within the toy, as Deborah writes, and so many others have usefully analyzed<\/a>,<\/b> is what has caused critics to speak out and withdraw support.<\/a>\u00a0 And this seems to be where Sterling seems most baffled and defensive, with the complicating thought that rejecting princess culture altogether is a way of denigrating girls and withdrawing an option that they might sincerely want.<\/p>\n

Watching this saga unfold, what I found most insightful has been keeping a close eye at the comments churning out under each story, or comment thread, notably on the GoldieBlox YouTube page<\/a> (with over 8 million views, a week ago).\u00a0 The point of view presented by Sterling, most often, is what has been largely supported, with detractors in the minority.\u00a0 It\u2019s cheering to know how many people desperately want this type of product for their daughters.\u00a0 There is a palpable sense of relief many expressed which I take as a positive sign of general fatigue with the limiting products marketed to girls.\u00a0 There seems to be real joy in finally being able to offer girls something \u2014 GoldieBlox \u2014 considered innovative and cutting edge with lots of support for Sterling\u2019s \u201cgood intentions.\u201d\u00a0 It also seems clear that many think that giving girls some princess-themed \u201chook\u201d is just fine since this reels them in.\u00a0 You’ll lure more girls in by pinkifying the product is their thinking (and Sterling\u2019s it seems) and then surprise-attack the girl playing with it that there’s a new activity literally at hand, perhaps even a new world opening up.<\/p>\n

\"GB_Box_BT002_v1_r1\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Fairly prominent was still the \u201cso what?\u201d response, maintaining that it’s \u201cjust a princess\u201d or just a bit pink and girls aren\u2019t defined just by this.\u00a0 So what if this is included, as a “naturalized” view of princesses and pink culture is seen as part of any product for a girl, with the flip argument that girls will summarily reject products if that don’t subscribe to this.\u00a0 More reactionary is the worrying expression that eliminating princesses from girls\u2019 toys is an unfair and even anti-feminist move, that bleaching pink from the palette available to girls is an ever worse form of reverse stereotyping. \u00a0Common enough was reactionary pushback to being told girls shouldn\u2019t<\/i> have pink or this product isn\u2019t \u201cprogressive\u201d enough, when, as many parents wrote, their girls did <\/i>naturally gravitate to the color.<\/p>\n

\u201cNatural,\u201d of course, is deeply vexed issue for those of us who think hard about these topics.\u00a0 For many parents who responded, the line between what girls are being offered and what girls are being denied seemed confusingly thin.\u00a0 \u00a0I completely understand the point of view of those who are turned off by the product\u2019s princess-themed story and see hypocrisy in Sterling\u2019s mixed message, which, worse yet, is undermining.\u00a0 I think the bait and switch is what is most maddening to me, as I wrote about with the Monster High line<\/a> in the past.<\/p>\n

Within my academic work in the past few years in Girls’ Studies<\/a> I\u2019ve studied what I\u2019ve come to call \u201cfauxpowerment\u201d — products or programs that purport to serve girls (often for economic gain or free publicity) while, in fact, deploying undermining and essentializing messages in the most disheartening ways.\u00a0 I\u2019m disappointed that GoldieBlox has taken the path it has, although this feedback seems useful as a gauge of the set beliefs that are largely shared about what girls want and, simultaneously, what they are denied. \u00a0It’s crucial to remember that while these toys will shape girls’ attitudes about gender, it’s the parents who purchase them, hence responding to their own limitations is critical.<\/p>\n

Perhaps new to the world business, (and giving her the benefit of the doubt), Sterling\u2019s work now seems to be causing more negative talk than good, although there’s no doubt\u00a0<\/span>it\u2019s got people talking<\/a>.\u00a0 Despite a steep rise in clubs and advocacy groups to increase girls going into STEM fields <\/span>there is a lot of work to do<\/a>.\u00a0<\/span>This ridiculous and insulting video, produced under the guise of \u201cspeak their language to lure them in\u201d<\/a> received such negative feedback it was finally (thankfully) pulled. \u00a0I want to be hopeful that, in the hands of girls who might receive GoldieBlox over the holidays, there is some net gain in having them even begin to associate the words \u201cgirl\u201d and “engineer.”\u00a0Like <\/span>last year\u2019s intervention with Lego\u2019s LadyFigs line,<\/a> I want to believe Sterling will get this message as well. \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

I’m glad to see the conversation this controversy has stirred, particularly from parents who are <\/span>trying to parse princess world<\/a> and what this means for their daughters.\u00a0 Many seem bewildered by which choice to make and fear their daughters will reject or be ostracized if she chooses, or if they offer, outside of the “pink box.\u201d The sense of longing in many women\u2019s comments about how much they wish something like this been around in their girlhoods has also been striking. \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\"mercy-ads-4\"<\/a>\"mercy-ad-hed-2013\"<\/a><\/p>\n

This past week an advertisement for Mercy Academy,<\/a> a small Catholic private girls’ school in Kentucky also went viral with their slogan “You\u2019re Not a Princess.”\u00a0<\/a> Mercy also uses the trope of the princess in its campaign, but only to offer it as a traditional narrative that is better off rejected in favor of girls taking charge of their own stories.\u00a0 Its reception was been roundly cheered.<\/p>\n

I was struck by the boldness of this slogan which isn\u2019t trying to spin or hedge or translate the cultural message that being a princess is okay for a girl, or even that she can be “more than a princess.”\u00a0 \u201cPrepare for Real Life\u201d seems to be the school motto as their message flat out refuses the princess stereotype.\u00a0 If only GoldieBlox could have been so bold.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

My thanks to colleague Deborah Siegel for starting off what has now become an even more complicated debate over the toy company GoldieBlox.\u00a0 I\u2019ve been amazed \u2014 and disappointed \u2014 at the turning tide during the past few days.\u00a0 While GoldieBlox\u2019s Twitter feed implies the product is selling well, it\u2019s also clear they\u2019re now spinning […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1912,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6839","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/girlwpen\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6839","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/girlwpen\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/girlwpen\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/girlwpen\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1912"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/girlwpen\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6839"}],"version-history":[{"count":12,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/girlwpen\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6839\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6857,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/girlwpen\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6839\/revisions\/6857"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/girlwpen\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6839"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/girlwpen\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6839"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/girlwpen\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6839"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}