Remember Becky? She was Barbie's friend, who used a wheelchair. I wasn't a fan-partially because I was 17 when she debuted, but mostly because I NEVER liked Barbies. I spent many years of my childhood with one arm or the other in a cast and it was so frustrating to pry her tiny clothes on and off one-handed. My dolls of choice were from American Girl, but the wheelchair for these dolls wasn't released until after I was too old to frolic with "Molly" and "Samantha" and too 
young to claim I was doing it in the name of play therapy. My little cousins have the wheelchair and I love hearing how they play "Kara" with it. I think it's awesome that ANY doll can use the wheelchair because it represents true diversity and veers away from the stereotypes that lingered with Becky (i.e. Some complained she embodied the role of being on the sidelines with her character as a photographer).
[Photo caption: Purple toy wheelchair from American Girls Dolls]
According to a Times Online article this week, disabled dolls are becoming more popular. The article (and a couple others) highlights a small company that makes dolls resembling kids with Down Syndrome. It seems most support the increased popularity but a few interesting questions were raised in the comments section. One person questioned how giving a child a doll that looks like them promotes inclusion. I think dolls (and other visible figures in the media) that kids can see themselves in are a way to build positive body images and feel like they DO belong in the world. To me, THAT is inclusive.
I completely disagree with a psychologist quoted in the article that had this to say:
"Children who have disabilities, including children with Down's syndrome, tend to see themselves as ‘like everyone else' and to offer a toy that ‘looks like them' may only emphasize the difference.”
She adds that, if a child has a temporary condition, such as a broken leg, which requires the use of a wheelchair, that child may feel an affiliation with Becky, who also needs a wheelchair. But those children who may have a lifelong condition such as cerebral palsy, which requires the long-term use of a wheelchair, “may wish to affiliate with a free-moving child and in fact see themselves as a normal, free-moving doll”. "
So let me get this straight...A child who looks different EVERY day doesn't realize? But a child who breaks their leg is welcome to play around with this little temporary fashion accessory if they please? IF children with disabilities wish to "affiliate themselves with a free-moving child" it's because they don't have positive models of how some in the world see them. Most recognize the importance of children of color to have access to dolls that resemble them. How is this different?
My only hope (as I've only got one of those for further improvement) is that the demand will spur the 
market to produce some higher quality, more realistic portrayals. I admire companies like the Down Syndrome Dolls site that have the courage to produce a potentially controversial product, but I do agree with some that a few of the features seem exaggerated to REALLY make sure we know the dolls are meant to portray someone with Down Syndrome. The site also offers dolls resembling kids going through chemotherapy. They appear to be dolls with the hair plucked out. I'm no doll creator but I don't think a little more creativity from a major doll company would be asking too much. I'll be interested to see where this issue goes in coming years because I'd love to outfit my therapy office (and my home!) with dolls representing diversity.
[Photo caption: One of the dolls from the Down Syndrome Dolls site discussed above. This female doll has a high pony tail with bangs, small almond eyes, a flattened nose, and a protruding tongue. Her hands have short fingers and she's wearing a red sleeper.]
What do you think?
