twitter facebook stumble upon rss

Michelle Obama Mad about Dolls

sign up for the momlogic newsletter Tweet This

The TyGirlz dolls do NOT have her stamp of approval.

Michelle Obama

Yesterday, we told you about the new dolls bearing the names of Sasha and Malia.

Now we've discovered that First Lady Michelle Obama is not pleased about these dolls one bit.

"We believe it is inappropriate to use young private citizens for marketing purposes," Ms. Obama's spokeswoman said.

Ty Inc. released its "Sweet Sasha" and "Marvelous Malia" dolls this month. Both dolls have bronze skin and dark hair.

The dolls are part of the Westmont-based toymaker's TyGirlz line. The company is also the creator of Beanie Babies, which have reportedly generated more than $6 billion in sales since their debut in 1994.

Would you be mad about these dolls if you were Michelle? Comment below.



next: Boys Love Their Mommies More
85 comments so far | Post a comment now
andrew January 24, 2009, 10:59 PM

As a father, I would be highly perturbed.

queenie January 24, 2009, 11:07 PM

well i dont think any disrespect was meant and as to why other presidents children didnt get a doll is because the other kids werent cute and werent popular like these two precious little girls are. apperently they have been taken to the heart by e1 not just white people out to make a buck or two. as for the dolls they probably should have asked the parents if it was okay since the girls themselves arent the ones who sought the spotlight. its their parents fame that makes them famous so asking their parents would have been the right thing to do.

Betty January 25, 2009, 12:33 AM

Thoughout history of African-Americans in this Country (U.S.A)this peoples had been made fun of, held up to ridicule for the entainment of other American, yes, I am upset as a mother. Where is the Bush, Clinton, and Kennedy children dolls to name a few.Lets give the same respect to the Obamas as all the presidents before him.

AlaskaGal08 January 25, 2009, 4:19 AM

I think it is definitely inappropriate without the consent of the parents. The company should have to remove the dolls from the market immediately or be fined if they don’t remove the dolls from the market.

Tom January 25, 2009, 12:08 PM

To Paulette,
I greatly understand your concern, but is it not time to refrain from putting “color” into every conversation we have. President Obama is a man who was and is viewed to be very capable of running his country and he happens to be of African descent. Isn’t this the way he should be thought of? As long as we harbor ill feelings toward one another for whatever reason, there will always be prejudice. It is after all the U.S. of A. and while the president wants to increase spending to help with the terrible economic times we are all dealing with, his wife takes exception to a company designing dolls that will indeed sell like wildfire. I commend this company for having the intelligence and entreprenurial spirit to come up with such an idea. These dolls are not the first dolls that were geared to look different from their typical white counterparts. Realistically, with the 12 percent of population that are African American, we should see around 12% of dolls or more with similar color. This I have noticed becoming the norm on many newscasts and other media presentations.
Tom

Ann January 25, 2009, 8:24 PM

It’s always sad when these comments start getting off track. Yes the company has a right to name their dolls whatever they choose, but they should have asked permission and donated a fraction of the profits to a charity. Also, President Obama does have relgion, he’s repeatedly spoken about his faith in God. He has worked for the community and I feel he’s helped America more than some of us (me included) Christians.

Anonymous January 25, 2009, 8:30 PM

Hell yeah I’d be angry!!! How dare they make dolls in the image of ANYBODIES child….

Carmen Washington January 25, 2009, 8:31 PM

These dolls are very ugly. Would you like someone making a doll of your children without your consent? Michelle is the first lady i’m sure it will be taken off the market asap.

tea January 25, 2009, 9:47 PM

I don’t know what this world is coming to. This is just plain disrespect to the first family. That lets you know this world is sick. God bless us all. I truly understand why the first Lady’s would be upset. I would to. These are two beautiful little girls who do not need this. I would nver buy these dolls, and let us give the President and His family the respect of the other presidents. His name is President Obama and first lady Mitchell…

Tloyde  January 26, 2009, 9:21 AM

Ok lets stop playing dumb people. They have two dolls sold together with the same names as the presidents daughters. Give me a break they were names after them to make money just like they have been franchizing their father with all of these coins and plates and mess. No one is stupid. I just read an article last week on it and it stated that the dolls were supposed to be them no all of a sudden since Michelle has said something “Oh no the dolls are not them they just have the same names”. Please.. They should’nt have done it w/o the parents consent.

mrswelles January 26, 2009, 10:08 AM

yes I would be mad. It is not appropriate and she is trying to raise her children to be well grounded.

K January 26, 2009, 11:13 AM

This is a historic time. Obama is the first 1/2 white president ever elected.
People are going to capitilize from it.
I believe the family was aware of what they were going to be in for if he was elected. They made the choice freely to live in the public eye. That means the whole family.

morgan the kid January 26, 2009, 8:01 PM

I think the dolls are very cute and are NOT meant to insult the 2 girls in any way. If they meant anything they are meant to show appreciation to the Obama girls. I would deffinitly by the “Marvelous Malia”.

morgan the kid (again) January 26, 2009, 8:16 PM

Yes I am just a child. But if you read my statment from before you will see what I mean and sasha is a common name in toys but not malia. I dont think it was a racism act nor a rude act it was a kind gesture to show the Obamas’ that even the toy companies would like to congratulate and welcome the new president AND his family. I could see why michelle got upset but she also needs to remember that not everybody is out to get her or humilliate her. -I’m 11 years old but have the mind of a protester and the words of a poet! “_”

live2lovebby January 26, 2009, 8:16 PM

i think the makers had the right to make the dolls, the names are not copyrighted, however if they are claiming the dolls to be the Obama girls, then they should have to ask their parents, those girls are young minors.
Also, the dolls are kind of insulting, they look crappy and nothing like Sasha and Malia they could have at least made them pretty, or at least not cheap looking.

Anonymous January 26, 2009, 8:39 PM

To “Tom”
You prejudicially label as “ill” the feelings of those persons who concern themselves with the “color” implications” behind corporate exploitation. You should rather suggest that the harboring of ill feelings comes from those who try to blind us from the role “color” has and does continue to play there.

It is ill and further outrage against historical and contemporary and immediate fact and truth for you to try and censure the evident role and ramifications of “color” in this case. Your remark of “I greatly understand your concern,” to Paulette, is pathetic. Your commendation for faulty exploitative conduct is what speaks of you most accurately: Basically, you are speaking cruelly and dishonestly.

President Obama has pointed to racist inequities—-and not the rightful exposure of racist inequities—-as a major, legitimate grievance of African Americans. The fact that African Americans account for less than whatever percent of the U.S. population is tied to a moral understanding that due to racist inequities Blacks made up way over half of the people living in poverty—57 percent. Daily exposure to poor social conditions—-including viscious indifference of “white priviledged” contribute to the inequities.

Your reference to African Americans as 12% of the population shows curious if not ill intentions, also. According to the US census, communities of color make up 34% of the population and racial and ethnic groups of color now account for 43 percent of Americans under 20. The percent of these racial and ethnic groups who may and do identify themselves as Black and/or African American is not altogether told by census reports; the number is much higher than 12 percent, according to indepth analyses anyone can research. Children of color constitute a majority of the under-20 population in the US Among people of all ages, persons of color make up at least 40 percent of the population in more than one in six of the nation’s 3,141 counties. Persons of color are increasingly identifying themselves as Black, too. Again, anyone can do reliable research.

Your commendation for an exploitative corporate production based solely on speculation that the exploitation will result in “wildfire”selling represents absolutely no change from an outrageous model of mind that will ultimately not even be welcomed in any museum on earth. Any topic of free corporate enterprise exploitation using African Americans ties logically and realistically to the fact that rural counties are increasingly the sites of enterprising state and corporate prisons: Already 89 percent of the black population within one US county is incarcerated, and this is partly the context for concern about corporate freedom.

Anonymous January 26, 2009, 8:45 PM

. Any topic of free corporate enterprise exploitation using African Americans ties logically and realistically to the fact that rural counties are increasingly the sites of enterprising state and corporate prisons: Already 89 percent of the black population within one US county is incarcerated, and this is partly the context for concern about corporate freedom.

Anonymous January 26, 2009, 9:06 PM

They say what goes around comes around, so perhaps someone, (in whatever space and time), will think you are “very cute” and will cast your likeness in a mold and brand the product with your name and mass produce it for their own dollar profit—-without your permission and gain and against your approval—-as a “kind gesture” to show how “even the toy companies would like to congratulate and welcome” you. Until such time, however, you’d do better to show more than a cavalier disregard for how others say they feel when they’re exploited. It’s a rather imperfect cover for dishonesty to say “I could see why michelle got upset” when your next cute comment is that “she needs to remember that not everyone is out to get her or humiliate her.” You may be taking lessons in logic from your like-minded posters, here—-or perhaps your just the average angry, unchanged person in a changing world.

Anonymous January 26, 2009, 9:09 PM

They say what goes around comes around, so perhaps someone, (in whatever space and time), will think you are “very cute” and will cast your likeness in a mold and brand the product with your name and mass produce it for their own dollar profit—-without your permission and gain and against your approval—-as a “kind gesture” to show how “even the toy companies would like to congratulate and welcome” you. Until such time, however, you’d do better to show more than a cavalier disregard for how others say they feel when they’re exploited. It’s a rather imperfect cover for dishonesty to say “I could see why michelle got upset” when your next cute comment is that “she needs to remember that not everyone is out to get her or humiliate her.” You may be taking lessons in logic from your like-minded posters, here—-or perhaps your just the average angry, unchanged person in a changing world.

Anonymous January 26, 2009, 9:13 PM

Post above (01/26/09 09:06 PM) addresses
“morgan the kid”


Back to top >>
advertisement