there is just so so much wrong with the girl store, but the three major points to be made are 1) the unsavory pitch, 2) the oversimplified "girl effect" logic, and 3) the lack of transparency.
the girl store ostensibly offers you the chance to support indian girls' access to education, by donating money through the purchase of school supplies for one of the girls pictured on the website. the logic is that education will prevent the sale of these girls into sexual slavery, forced labor or early marriage in a society rife with gender inequality, where sons are often prized over daughters, and where, among poor families, a daughter is an unwanted mouth to feed.
ok. so what's so wrong about this?
1) the fundamental cringe-worthiness of the pitch: there's a lot going on here for me, but imma try to articulate it as clearly as i can. i'm sure the theme of "commodification" is deliberate here; it's meant to emphasize the way these girls' lives are commodified and devalued by their societies and their families, particularly compared to sons. the problem for me is that, like a failed satire of racist attitudes, the girl store's presentation doesn't sufficiently undermine this concept through the appropriation of the theme. the girls pictured on the website appear, to me, dehumanized; they are precious little brown girl dolls that you, you white in shining armor, can make your very own. you can even dress her up (accessories not included)! the deliberately provocative commodification/child trafficking connection is also poorly served by the explicit appropriation of the language of child prostitution. like, i get where you were going with this one, girl store, but seriously: creepy. really really creepy.
2) the "girl effect" logic behind it: so, there's a lot of strong, reliable evidence that (some) aid is most effective when targeted at women and girls, but along with complexity and failure, "the girl effect" is set to be among the most overused and under-critically-analyzed buzz concepts in development in 2011 (self-promotion: i sort of wrote about this in regards to climate change a couple of months ago). the debate is well summarized elsewhere, so i'll just point out that the girl store seems to take a drastically oversimplified view of the causal connection between (specifically) lack of girls education and gender inequality as expressed by trafficking and early marriage*. it's just more, well, complex than that.
3) lack of transparency for donors: seriously we JUST WENT THROUGH THIS with the Great Kiva Debate. if you aren't familiar: basically, there was a huge blow up a few months ago over the way kiva, a micro-loan provider, told (or at least implied) to donors it did business, in comparison to how it actually did business. the story which kiva sold was that you, as a donor, are selecting an actual individual human to whom you are making a loan, kiva gives them the money, they do nice things, and you get to follow their progress and feel good about yourself. the reality, it was revealed, is much more complicated, and necessarily so. kiva partners with a microfinance organization in a developing country, the organization disburses loans to people and THEN the stories are posted. when you choose a loan to fund, partially or fully, you're actually sending your money to the organization that disbursed that loan, not the individual in question. bear in mind, this is the only ethical and effective way to go about doing this. you don't put people up all over the internet and then not give them money. you can't have a single US-based organization centrally disburse almost $200 million to individuals scattered throughout the third world. (well you could try, but it wouldn't work as well, if at all). the real debate was not over the necessity or propriety of the real model, but about the propriety of using implying that your money was doing something that it's not, because faces and personal stories are more compelling fund-raising tools than slightly more complex micro-finance mechanisms. it was about transparency.
the girl store does kiva one better (worse?). nowhere, but NOWHERE, on its website does it provide any information about the mechanics of how your donation is disbursed. it leaves you to assume that your $10 are actually buying little shruti's school uniform. now, this means that one of two unacceptable things is happening. we might have kiva redux, whereby the the girl store is providing reimbursement to its partners for support already given to girls whose photos are features on the website...and thus irresponsibly misleading its donors. alternatively, (and in my mind this is the worse, if less likely option) you have an organization that is promising actual individual children support for their education, posting their pictures on the internet (in a dehumanizing, colonial, and sexually objectified way, i will reiterate), and just stone cold hopin' that some money comes through. both options represent a drastic abdication of responsibility, the first, to donors, the second, to beneficiaries.
for any or all of these reasons, i say, "dear girl store: just stop."
*afterthought: this post doesn't even touch on the monolithic image of "indian" culture and society that the girl store creates.
the girl store ostensibly offers you the chance to support indian girls' access to education, by donating money through the purchase of school supplies for one of the girls pictured on the website. the logic is that education will prevent the sale of these girls into sexual slavery, forced labor or early marriage in a society rife with gender inequality, where sons are often prized over daughters, and where, among poor families, a daughter is an unwanted mouth to feed.
 |
| image from the girl store website |
ok. so what's so wrong about this?
1) the fundamental cringe-worthiness of the pitch: there's a lot going on here for me, but imma try to articulate it as clearly as i can. i'm sure the theme of "commodification" is deliberate here; it's meant to emphasize the way these girls' lives are commodified and devalued by their societies and their families, particularly compared to sons. the problem for me is that, like a failed satire of racist attitudes, the girl store's presentation doesn't sufficiently undermine this concept through the appropriation of the theme. the girls pictured on the website appear, to me, dehumanized; they are precious little brown girl dolls that you, you white in shining armor, can make your very own. you can even dress her up (accessories not included)! the deliberately provocative commodification/child trafficking connection is also poorly served by the explicit appropriation of the language of child prostitution. like, i get where you were going with this one, girl store, but seriously: creepy. really really creepy.
2) the "girl effect" logic behind it: so, there's a lot of strong, reliable evidence that (some) aid is most effective when targeted at women and girls, but along with complexity and failure, "the girl effect" is set to be among the most overused and under-critically-analyzed buzz concepts in development in 2011 (self-promotion: i sort of wrote about this in regards to climate change a couple of months ago). the debate is well summarized elsewhere, so i'll just point out that the girl store seems to take a drastically oversimplified view of the causal connection between (specifically) lack of girls education and gender inequality as expressed by trafficking and early marriage*. it's just more, well, complex than that.
3) lack of transparency for donors: seriously we JUST WENT THROUGH THIS with the Great Kiva Debate. if you aren't familiar: basically, there was a huge blow up a few months ago over the way kiva, a micro-loan provider, told (or at least implied) to donors it did business, in comparison to how it actually did business. the story which kiva sold was that you, as a donor, are selecting an actual individual human to whom you are making a loan, kiva gives them the money, they do nice things, and you get to follow their progress and feel good about yourself. the reality, it was revealed, is much more complicated, and necessarily so. kiva partners with a microfinance organization in a developing country, the organization disburses loans to people and THEN the stories are posted. when you choose a loan to fund, partially or fully, you're actually sending your money to the organization that disbursed that loan, not the individual in question. bear in mind, this is the only ethical and effective way to go about doing this. you don't put people up all over the internet and then not give them money. you can't have a single US-based organization centrally disburse almost $200 million to individuals scattered throughout the third world. (well you could try, but it wouldn't work as well, if at all). the real debate was not over the necessity or propriety of the real model, but about the propriety of using implying that your money was doing something that it's not, because faces and personal stories are more compelling fund-raising tools than slightly more complex micro-finance mechanisms. it was about transparency.
the girl store does kiva one better (worse?). nowhere, but NOWHERE, on its website does it provide any information about the mechanics of how your donation is disbursed. it leaves you to assume that your $10 are actually buying little shruti's school uniform. now, this means that one of two unacceptable things is happening. we might have kiva redux, whereby the the girl store is providing reimbursement to its partners for support already given to girls whose photos are features on the website...and thus irresponsibly misleading its donors. alternatively, (and in my mind this is the worse, if less likely option) you have an organization that is promising actual individual children support for their education, posting their pictures on the internet (in a dehumanizing, colonial, and sexually objectified way, i will reiterate), and just stone cold hopin' that some money comes through. both options represent a drastic abdication of responsibility, the first, to donors, the second, to beneficiaries.
for any or all of these reasons, i say, "dear girl store: just stop."
*afterthought: this post doesn't even touch on the monolithic image of "indian" culture and society that the girl store creates.
wow, molly, this is incredible. thanks for your commentary; you hit the nail of my discomfort with the girl store on the head.
ReplyDeletewait... you mean I can't *actually order a real girl* at The Girl Store??? 'Cause - damn - I was running low.
ReplyDeleteIn all seriousness, really good post. Thanks to you, ranting to the world about this god-awful marketing porn is one thing I can cross of my to-do list for this week.
reading your blog is almost like chatting with you over your kitchen table with a bottle of wine between us. miss you girl. love the blog.
ReplyDelete--june