Posting Pics of kid breastfeeding dolls

[Kobi]

It's O.K. to Post Pictures of Kids Breastfeeding Their Dolls on Facebook

Proving that it still doesn't quite have a handle on what's offensive and what isn't, Facebook's latest apology has to do with taking down photos of young girls pantomiming breastfeeding. Ok, so the second part of that may strike you as a bit weird (especially if you don't know any girls who did that with any of their dolls), but apparently it's quite all right to post pictures of your children mock breastfeeding on the popular social media platform, as the pro-breastfeeding U.K. website Express Yourself Mums found out. The site had their Facebook page pulled and reinstated after its owners uploaded pictures (above) of their young girls breastfeeding. As The Guardian notes, "Facebook has a history of categorising photos of breastfeeding as 'obscene content' and removing them. But this is the first time a British group – or a picture of children role-playing breastfeeding – has been taken down." Facebook has also had a history peppered with controversy of keeping offensive jokes on for too long and more recently, taking down abortion instructions, which all kind of circles back to free speech and the problems of maintaining that on a money-making website. One analyst puts Facebook's censorship problems succinctly. "The risk is that it becomes associated with such acts as the US government taking down Wikileaks or the Chinese restricting Google ... On the other hand its commercial revenues depend on it not being linked to publicly odious sentiments."

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/01/its-ok-post-pictures-kids-breastfeeding-their-dolls-facebook/47161/


-----------------------------------------------------------


Condsidering I have been mulling this over for the last hour, pictures of young children simulating breastfeeding is just not sitting well with me.

I dont find breastfeeding, even in public, to be offensive. It doesnt bother me for kids to simulate what they may see at home, in the home.

What does bother me, I think, is posting pictures of it on the internet. I tend to fail to see the need to people to post pictures about every aspect of the lives, or to share every deal of it with a world of virtual strangers.

Something about doing this to kids seems exploitive to me. Parents go to extraordinary lengths to protect their children and the innocence of their children. Yet, they will post something for the entire world to see, some of those who are people who sexualize the innocent and playful acts of young children.

Wondering if this is bugging anyone else.

[buttercupmuffin]

I think that I just wrote and erased 3 different responses to this. lol I feel a bit mixed about this. Had I had facebook when my kids were younger and had I taken a picture of my oldest mock breastfeed her dolls(which is a normal behaviour as they watch mom nurse and tend to younger babies) I may have put it on my facebook, which is only open to those who are on it (friends and family) to share the cuteness. So, in that sense to share with people you love a moment that you found worth sharing there is nothing wrong with it. Not directed at you, but just a general question, what would the response be if the pictures were of little boys mimicking the same behaviours? I'm still in the air about this, I think I need to think about it a little more. :)

[Kobi]

I think that I just wrote and erased 3 different responses to this. lol I feel a bit mixed about this. Had I had facebook when my kids were younger and had I taken a picture of my oldest mock breastfeed her dolls(which is a normal behaviour as they watch mom nurse and tend to younger babies) I may have put it on my facebook, which is only open to those who are on it (friends and family) to share the cuteness. So, in that sense to share with people you love a moment that you found worth sharing there is nothing wrong with it. Not directed at you, but just a general question, what would the response be if the pictures were of little boys mimicking the same behaviours? I'm still in the air about this, I think I need to think about it a little more. :)


I am with you on this. Private stuffed shared with family and friends is one thing. And, if someone posted a picture of their kid playing baseball, I wouldnt give it a second thought.

When I saw the title of the article, I wondered why it was such a big deal. The abstract idea didnt bother me. It was the picture that came with the article above that started me being bothered by this.

I am trying to figure out why this is bugging me and if it should bug me. Was hoping some input from others would help to put things in perspective.

[Truly Scrumptious]

It disturbs me too, for a couple of reasons. Obviously FB makes no sense. A friend of mine who is a brilliant artist has had her FB page taken down several times because of its erotic content, they said her art was offensive. (To me, the only offensive art is bad art, but even that is subjective.)

If your FB account is private and all your settings are adjusted so that absolutely nobody can see your pictures without your consent, then I don’t see any problems. Kids are going to emulate what they see at home, little girls will try on high heels and makeup, and little boys will practice shaving.
(And little boys will try on high heels and makeup, and little girls will practice shaving, but I digress.) The problem comes with the way people use FB. I regularly see people using pictures of their children as their own profile pic, leaving their photo albums open to all even though their wall might be private. I think that’s a mistake on so many levels, but if you want to share pictures of your drunk and disorderly self with the world, that’s your decision. Posting pictures of your kids anywhere on the internet needs to be considered very seriously.

And yes, I’d be worried about people sexualizing the pictures of little girls breast feeding their dolls, but the truth is that a simple Google search of “little girls breast feeding their dolls” turned up a kazillion images that are available to anyone with a computer, as well as plenty of information about “the breast milk baby”, an $89 doll that comes with a special halter top with two flowers positioned where nipples would be, and makes “lifelike” suckling sounds.

More on the doll here: http://thebreastmilkbaby.com/

Controversy about the doll here:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/breast-milk-baby-doll-girls/story?id=13251971&page=2#.TxMNsoFJCSo

And this subject makes me think of this:

cHW_ygZY50M

[IrishGrrl]

Kids pretending to breast feed is fine in my book. It's a good thing, maybe they will breast feed their own children one day. Posting pics of it is another matter.

[Cin]

I would like to talk about another aspect of this issue. Breastfeeding dolls and breastfeeding in general. A little girl picking up her doll and putting it to her breast is one thing. And a little kid who wants to breast feed her/his doll certainly has that option. However designing a doll whose main purpose is to make sucking noises while attached to flowers on a halter top your kid is wearing feels like a whole other ball game. It harkens back to the day when people believed a woman’s real job was as a baby factory and just naturally assumed she would get with a guy and drop some babies. It’s like training for little girls to assume their proper societal roles. It is not only gendered but biologically deterministic. Of course all toy dolls further perpetuate gender roles. That can’t be helped. And to a certain degree is fine. However a milking doll takes biology to a whole other level. With all the subtly of a train wreck it reinforces societal beliefs that little girls and women are biologically inclined towards child rearing and nurturing behaviors. According to proponents of these dolls, they teach nurturing skills to little girls. I think we have always focused on teaching nurturing skills, often confused with passivity and compliance, to our female offspring. How about a little nurturing skills for our boy children? I mean since when is nurturing behavior only a good thing when done by a woman?

Another problem I see with breastfeeding dolls is how it helps to reinforce the established belief that breast feeding is the normal way to feed a baby. I understand that it is the accepted best way to feed one’s child. The benefits of breast feeding make it the good choice. It’s just that it ends up sounding like breast feeding is the only choice for good mothers. And to chose convenience instead makes you a bad mother or at the least a selfish mother who puts her own needs over the needs of her child. WIC, a program that gives assistance to women in need, has decided it can cut back on infant formula making it only supplemental because women should just breast feed. Again others are controlling women’s bodies and telling them what they should be doing with them.

I believe breast feeding should be a socially accepted act. Currently it is seen as impolite at best in the western world. Maybe it’s because women’s bodies are too much viewed as sexual rather than functioning. Women’s breasts are seen as sex objects that need to be hidden away. So while I agree breast feeding needs to become more publicly acceptable, I am talking about women breast feeding not little girls breast feeding. Little girls strapping on flower nipples to breast feed their sucking dolls just seems fraught with biological determinism and a healthy degree of ickyness.

[Kobi]

I would like to talk about another aspect of this issue. Breastfeeding dolls and breastfeeding in general. A little girl picking up her doll and putting it to her breast is one thing. And a little kid who wants to breast feed her/his doll certainly has that option. However designing a doll whose main purpose is to make sucking noises while attached to flowers on a halter top your kid is wearing feels like a whole other ball game. It harkens back to the day when people believed a woman’s real job was as a baby factory and just naturally assumed she would get with a guy and drop some babies. It’s like training for little girls to assume their proper societal roles. It is not only gendered but biologically deterministic. Of course all toy dolls further perpetuate gender roles. That can’t be helped. And to a certain degree is fine. However a milking doll takes biology to a whole other level. With all the subtly of a train wreck it reinforces societal beliefs that little girls and women are biologically inclined towards child rearing and nurturing behaviors. According to proponents of these dolls, they teach nurturing skills to little girls. I think we have always focused on teaching nurturing skills, often confused with passivity and compliance, to our female offspring. How about a little nurturing skills for our boy children? I mean since when is nurturing behavior only a good thing when done by a woman?

Another problem I see with breastfeeding dolls is how it helps to reinforce the established belief that breast feeding is the normal way to feed a baby. I understand that it is the accepted best way to feed one’s child. The benefits of breast feeding make it the good choice. It’s just that it ends up sounding like breast feeding is the only choice for good mothers. And to chose convenience instead makes you a bad mother or at the least a selfish mother who puts her own needs over the needs of her child. WIC, a program that gives assistance to women in need, has decided it can cut back on infant formula making it only supplemental because women should just breast feed. Again others are controlling women’s bodies and telling them what they should be doing with them.

I believe breast feeding should be a socially accepted act. Currently it is seen as impolite at best in the western world. Maybe it’s because women’s bodies are too much viewed as sexual rather than functioning. Women’s breasts are seen as sex objects that need to be hidden away. So while I agree breast feeding needs to become more publicly acceptable, I am talking about women breast feeding not little girls breast feeding. Little girls strapping on flower nipples to breast feed their sucking dolls just seems fraught with biological determinism and a healthy degree of ickyness.

This makes a lot of sense to me. Especially seeing the web site for these dolls says this:

Why Little Girls Need to Learn to Breastfeed

Little girls need to learn to breastfeed. Berjuan Toys, the company that has always supported the development of small children by producing interesting, engaging dolls, continues its tradition with the release of this innovative baby doll, The Breast Milk Baby.

The Breast Milk Baby lets young girls express their love and affection in the most natural way possible, just like mommy! The Breast Milk Baby represents a revolution in design by teaching children the nurturing skills they’ll need to raise their own healthy babies. Just put on the fashionable top included with each Breast Milk Baby, bring the baby’s mouth up to the pretty flower, and enjoy the closeness, the loving bond between mother and child.

The United States Health Resources and Services Administration has made it a national goal to have at least 75% of all mothers breastfeeding for at least six months by 2010. The Breast Milk Baby will help to reach that goal by helping to accept and promote breastfeeding as the most loving, healthy practice for a mother and her infant1.

Breastfeeding isn’t just a wonderful practice for the health of the infant. Mothers who breastfeed are more likely to return to their former weight before childbirth, and have a reduced risk of breast cancer and osteoporosis for the rest of their lives2. The Breast Milk Baby helps mothers and children get the most out of life, while spending less time and money at the doctor’s office!

Thanks for this. It is bringing my concerns into a better focus.

[twist of lime]

It makes me uncomfortable.

It stems from my personal belief that breast feeding is a very intimate time between mother and child, something sacred and innocent. I don't think it's bad, just private.

Most every moment is a moment of learning. We are constantly pointing our children in what we believe to be the right direction, not to say that she wasn't pointed in the right direction, just not the direction I would have chosen for my child.

I do not have an issue with women breast feeding in public. I don't stare at or otherwise intrude upon someone while they are eating, no matter if they are sitting, standing or cradled in someone's arms. It just isn't polite.

[Words]

Perhaps if more little girls were to appreciate from a very young age the real reason why they are different to boys when it comes to their chests, then more little boys would appreciate it too and not grow up thinking that breasts are nothing but things to play with when they're older.

I think the dolls are great. Would I put up a picture of my daughter, were she younger, playing with one on Facebook? No, but then I wouldn't put up a picture of her anyway, the reason being that I truly believe that in the wrong hands, even the most innocent of images - a young child reading a book, for example - can and will be sexualized.

Words

[Cin]

Perhaps if more little girls were to appreciate from a very young age the real reason why they are different to boys when it comes to their chests, then more little boys would appreciate it too and not grow up thinking that breasts are nothing but things to play with when they're older.


I think that is a good point. The natural function of breasts are not to be toys for boys or anyone for that matter. Breasts are more than things to play with. Unless of course you don't have children. It's okay not to use them as baby feeders... ever. Just like it's okay not to use sex as a tool for procreation. I guess a healthy middle ground is good. It just reminded me of some things I hear from some of my mother's very religious friends about putting the emphasis on the function of sex, you know to create another life. I'm just wary.

[EnderD_503]

Seems to be a lot of Facebook/breastfeeding controversies going on lately. I don't see anything wrong with women breastfeeding in public or putting up pictures of themselves breastfeeding on social media sites. I think this North American perspective of breastfeeding = bad is pretty fucking horrible. I think it says a lot about the extent to which North American society sees women's bodies as strictly sexual objects. There is nothing shameful about breasts or women showing them in public, and nothing shameful or "obscene" about women breastfeeding in public.

That said, those women are adults who have children and have made the decision to breastfeed their children. I see it differently when it comes to young girls. Showing images of young girls pretending to breastfeed on public sites seems a lot like something that could go terribly wrong, whether in attracting sexual predators/endangering them, or by propagating ideas on raising children in "proper"/traditional gender roles.

Perhaps if more little girls were to appreciate from a very young age the real reason why they are different to boys when it comes to their chests, then more little boys would appreciate it too and not grow up thinking that breasts are nothing but things to play with when they're older.

I think the dolls are great. Would I put up a picture of my daughter, were she younger, playing with one on Facebook? No, but then I wouldn't put up a picture of her anyway, the reason being that I truly believe that in the wrong hands, even the most innocent of images - a young child reading a book, for example - can and will be sexualized.

Words

While agree that society teaches young girls to view their own bodies as sexual objects (and boys viewing women's bodies as sexual objects), I also agree with what MissTick said about women being brought up to see their bodies as baby-making machines/boys to see women's bodies as baby-making machines. Too many young girls are brought up by their families under the assumption that she will one day have her own child, and if she expresses that she has no interest her family will often tell her that it's a "stage" and she'll "grow out of it." If she doesn't her family "worries," they might even talk to a mental health professional about it. Women/girls who do not want to bear children/be mothers are seen as "unnatural" or "strange" far too often in our society.

To me a doll like that seems an awful lot like a toy company trying to reinforce gender roles, and the stereotypical female role of "mother" and "nurturer." But people who are assigned female at birth are far more diverse than that. Not all women want to be mothers or see "the real reason they are different to boys when it comes to their chests." There are women and girls who see their breasts as nothing to do with breastfeeding and motherhood, and would prefer not to have their breasts thought of that way. Who see their breasts as for their own pleasure, for their own pride, empowerment and self-perception, and nothing to do with reproduction and motherhood. And what about women who can't breastfeed or don't have breasts? Are they being told they need to breastfeed in order to be a mother? That they can't be a mother?

That aside, what makes a parent decide to buy their kid a doll like that? Considering how many trans children or non-normative children (and here I mean any child who simply doesn't view their own bodies in a way that revolves around reproductive roles) who are assigned female at birth are brought up being forced into gender roles, this seems like yet another toy to reinforce stereotypes in children who want nothing to do with those stereotypes. Is this toy for children who truly want it, or more a toy for parents to "make their little girls more like mommy"?

I think there are better ways to teach children that women's bodies are not sexual objects than by giving them breastfeeding dolls.

That's just my two cents.

[blush]

Calling a woman's breasts "baby feeders" is gross. Almost as gross as the amount of money formula companies have spent and made convincing American women that their bodies are incapable of feeding their child.

It's not a gender role to encourage nurturing, it's a human trait we need to encourage in all of us. Nurturing doesn't make a child weak or passive.

It's adults that assign gender suitability to toys. A child playing with a baby doll is just that: a child playing with a baby doll. Why would we assume that a transgendered child would not play with a baby doll? The child chooses the toy, as the wand chooses the wizard.

[Martina]

i think it's weird that we think it's weird. i also do not see breastfeeding as a private act. Intimate? yes sometimes. Private. No. Is eating private? Is it private when a baby is gobbling down jars of baby food?

[Words]

EnderD,

I get what you are saying...kind of. Thing is, why all the fuss about these particular dolls? There are peeing dolls on the market, dolls with pacifiers, dolls that walk, dolls that talk, dolls that don't do anything...All of which could be seen as reinforcing the idea that most young girls will eventually be/want to be mothers.

I just think, to quote Martina, that it's weird that we think it's weird, because to me, that feels like it's us who are doing all the sexualizing.

Words

[Soft*Silver]

hate me if you will, but frankly I do not like breastfeeding in public. I dont need to defend myself here but I will say this: if I am sitting in a restaurant I dont want to watch a woman suckle a child. If I am in a theater, at a party, anywhere in public, I dont want to see this activity. If I am in someone's home or even if they are in my home and its time for baby to be fed, then by all means, breast feed. I changed my daughter out in the LR when she was a baby. I surely wouldnt do that in public. You can tell me its wrong to show genitals in public but not wrong to show a woman's breast in public and i will counter that its not her breast that bothers me, its about the "time and place" for certain acts.

and I wont engage in arguments about this. its how I feel and you can feel your way and neither of us has anything to do with whether or not jane Doe is going to feed her baby in public.. thats HER choice and I will fight for her to have that right. Even if its not what i would chose to do, nor want to see in public, its still HER right. my feminism is higher priority than my personal value laden proprieties.

BUT I do have concern with images of children on the cyberland. There are some strange fiends out there and I can see some of them constrewing the natural act of a child modeling breastfeeding into sexual erotica.

I know its meant to be sweet but images are never safe once they are in cyberland. I saw a doctored photograph of two elderly women where someone very skillfully made them barebreasted while they were drinking coffee in a restaurant. Another woman, who had elephantitus, was plastered all over this one site as the twinkie girl...making her medical abnormality into a bullyfest against an overweight girl. Did those elderly women or that woman with elephantitus every dream their photos would become beacons of ill humour on social networks? No! If they do that with simple photos, god help photos of children suckling dolls...

frankly, I wouldnt put any child's image in cyber until laws catch up to the technology leaps...

[Martina]

Newborns eat at least every four hours. Unless you want to force new mothers to stay home, they are going to have to breastfeed in public. It's always the time and place to feed a hungry baby. Unless you want to keep nursing mothers out of public spaces, it's always the time and place to breastfeed.

My response to people who don't want to see it is -- don't look.

Almost all states protect a mother's right to breastfeed.

People who feel uncomfortable about it and show that discomfort are the problem. No one should ever do anything to make a woman nursing in public feel self-conscious. She is doing the very best thing for her child.

i truly don't care what the source of some people's discomfort is. They really need to just not show it.

i even think that people ought to really hesitate before they share IN PUBLIC their feeling that seeing a woman breastfeeding bothers them. A nursing mother might hear. Or a woman who will be nursing at some point could hear. The states have made the decision, and the courts have upheld these laws time and again. It's over. There is no reason to make a nursing mother feel in any way like she has to worry about what others think. She doesn't need the stress. Nor does her baby.

[Novelafemme]

Newborns eat at least every four hours. Unless you want to force new mothers to stay home, they are going to have to breastfeed in public. It's always the time and place to feed a hungry baby. Unless you want to keep nursing mothers out of public spaces, it's always the time and place to breastfeed.

My response to people who don't want to see it is -- don't look.

Almost all states protect a mother's right to breastfeed.

People who feel uncomfortable about it and show that discomfort are the problem. No one should ever do anything to make a woman nursing in public feel self-conscious. She is doing the very best thing for her child.

i truly don't care what the source of some people's discomfort is. They really need to just not show it.

i even think that people ought to really hesitate before they share IN PUBLIC their feeling that seeing a woman breastfeeding bothers them. A nursing mother might hear. Or a woman who will be nursing at some point could hear. The states have made the decision, and the courts have upheld these laws time and again. It's over. There is no reason to make a nursing mother feel in any way like she has to worry about what others think. She doesn't need the stress. Nor does her baby.

<sigh> if only i could quadruple like this!! :rrose:

[Cin]

I don’t have any problem with a women breast feeding in public. None. Not even any. Not even a hint of any. Nope. However, I do believe whether or not to breast feed one’s child is a mother’s decision. Pressure to make her feel like a bad mother or a selfish mother because she chooses, for whatever reason, not to breast feed is problematic to me. I have a problem when WIC makes the decision for mothers needing assistance by not making enough formula available for them to do anything but breast feed. I have a problem when the United States Health Resources and Services Administration makes it a national goal to have at least 75% of all mothers breast feeding. Especially since the only mothers they can really control are those needing assistance. Feeling that a woman should have the right to choose not to breast feed does not mean that I don’t feel comfortable with breast feeding anywhere or anytime. It means I feel uncomfortable when controlling or coercing the choice of what to do with a woman’s body becomes the target of society and/or the government. A woman should have the right to choose what to do with her own body. And I get that a good many people, some of them even women, do not agree.

And I feel that breast feeding dolls are just over the top. There are tons of dolls that do all kinds of things. We don’t need breast feeding ones. Contrary to what the makers of these dolls are saying, I don’t believe a little girls needs to learn how to breast feed when she is 5 or 6 or 7 or whatever. It’s a tool to perpetuate society’s need to uphold gender roles and biological determinism. And I don’t agree with the argument that little girls need to learn to nurture. All children should learn nurturing skills. It’s time we focus a bit on ways to help boys learn this skill.

[Words]

Many, many moons ago, when my daughter was a baby, I was living in the Middle East and still wearing full hijab. To let anything above the ankle, wrist, or neck show was considered taboo and yet wherever I was, and I mean wherever I was, I was comfortable enough to breast feed (albeit whilst carefully covering my breast with a shawl/scarf). Nobody looked. Nobody commented. Nobody cared. This, in a predominantly Muslim society where the majority of women covered the greater part of their bodies to 'protect themselves' from the natural inclinations of men (as some would have us believe).

The reason that nobody looked, commented, or cared is the fact that men in that society, from the time they are born until the time they die, are exposed to the act of breastfeeding and attach no sexual connotations to either the act itself or women's breasts, in that context, whatsoever. As a result, when they see a woman breastfeed in public, they not only accept it, but deliberately avoid looking in her direction out of respect not only for her privacy, but also for the act in which she's engaged. It's a beautiful thing to observe and something that never failed to touch me in one way or another.

My point? I'm not sure I have one. It just seemed kind of relevant.

Words

[Cin]

Also I think the only ones sexualizing breast feeding whether done by children to dolls or adults to babies is Facebook (because of the weird way they have of categorizing things, not from any personal feeling about it) and of course perverts who troll the internet looking for things that they have fetishized and sexualized. Little girls breast feeding i'm sure falls under that category for someone. And "Facebook has a history of categorising photos of breastfeeding as 'obscene content' but even they seem to agree since they apologized for removing them, pics of little girls breast feeding dolls is not obscene. I think it is disturbing for many reasons which I touched on in this thread, but I don't find it obscene or sexual in the least. Sexual and obscene is when mothers dress their little girls in slinky gowns, high heels and make up and have them parade around encouraging them to shake their booty in order to win beauty pageants. These things must be like amusement parks for sexual perverts.

The objection I have to little girls having dolls suck at flowers attached to their chests is not one of a sexual nature. I do think that the reason people have problems with adults breast feeding babies in public is because the breast is highly sexualized. More breast feeding in public may eventually help people see breasts as body parts with important functions outside of recreation. And I'm certainly all for that. Little girls breast feeding. Not so much.

[EnderD_503]

EnderD,

I get what you are saying...kind of. Thing is, why all the fuss about these particular dolls? There are peeing dolls on the market, dolls with pacifiers, dolls that walk, dolls that talk, dolls that don't do anything...All of which could be seen as reinforcing the idea that most young girls will eventually be/want to be mothers.

I just think, to quote Martina, that it's weird that we think it's weird, because to me, that feels like it's us who are doing all the sexualizing.

Words

I guess for me it's not just the fuss about these particular dolls, but the insinuation from the marketing for these particular dolls that breastfeeding is a "normal, natural thing" for all girls to do, and that, therefore, they need dolls to "mimic mommy." Thing is, not all girls want this. Often the dolls we gender and give to children is in many instanced forced on them. In most cases the kids won't question it, and most will play with whatever's available to them. But breastfeeding dolls, or dolls where the marketing targets little girls specifically to be taught to fit traditional female gender roles...I have a problem with that, whether it's a breastfeeding doll or a kitchen set marketed to girls.

Calling a woman's breasts "baby feeders" is gross. Almost as gross as the amount of money formula companies have spent and made convincing American women that their bodies are incapable of feeding their child.

It's not a gender role to encourage nurturing, it's a human trait we need to encourage in all of us. Nurturing doesn't make a child weak or passive.

It's adults that assign gender suitability to toys. A child playing with a baby doll is just that: a child playing with a baby doll. Why would we assume that a transgendered child would not play with a baby doll? The child chooses the toy, as the wand chooses the wizard.

The problem is that the child does not always choose the toy. In most cases, the child doesn't. I kept my Barbies in their boxes in the closet untouched and paid no attention to them whatsoever and extended family members (thankfully my parents were a little smarter) kept getting me Barbie's. I'm definitely not an exception, I'm definitely not the only one who experienced this. Talk to a lot of folks on this very forum (whether butch, femme or trans) and many will tell you that they had the exact same experience. Talk to your local queer community, people assigned male at birth, whether cis or trans, who preferred to play with dolls but were yelled at for even trying. People assigned female at birth who would much rather be playing sports, but were yelled at or told they couldn't because "you're a girl, act like a girl." I'm not talking about "transgendered dolls" I'm talking about society frequently forcing gender stereotypes onto children. All children. I'm talking about society telling girls or children assigned female at birth that they need to want to breastfeed, have children, be "nurturing" and play with toy kitchens.

Like it or not, encouraging nurturing in the case of dolls like this is enforcing gender roles. The advertisements shared here are not asking little boys to breastfeed their dolls in order to "be like mommy," it's targeted to female children.

As far as encouraging nurturing, not all children want to grow up to be "nurturers." It's not a human trait across the board. I'm not going to go and discourage a child who wants to play with that kind of doll from doing so, but neither do I want to see such heavy emphasis on "encouraging" children to be nurturing...especially when girls are so frequently the target.

[Cin]

Just for the record when I talk about encouraging nurturing skills in any child I am talking about helping a kid learn how to give support and encouragement to others. I am talking about teaching children how to give of themselves to another human being. Not to give exclusively and not to the detriment of oneself, which is what is often taught to female children, but to be supportive and encouraging to others, especially those people who we profess to love.

I think it is a great skill to have and learning to nurture others is often critical when trying to develop a loving relationship with another human being. It is also helpful in everyday life, at work and in daily interactions with others. Being able and willing to teach and encourage is very nurturing and fosters deep meaningful connections to other human beings. I am not talking about rearing one’s children, although learning to be nurturing in relationships will be helpful to that end as well.

But, as it is with so much in this world, it’s all about balance and learning limits. Being able to be a nurturing person does not mean you will always choose to nurture others. Of course, as with anything we attempt to teach to people, little people or big people, they may choose not to learn it and that is perfectly acceptable. I just think the option should be there and not just for female children. And it really, really, need not be taught by buying kids breast feeding dolls. Or any dolls for that matter. It probably should not be taught that way. Maybe even cannot be taught that way. Perhaps when people talk about ways to teach nurturing skills to little girls they are talking about something much different than I am when I speak of the need to learn to nurture other human beings.

[Countyfem]

I find it very disturbing that people would post pics of this nature, I wonder if they thought about the pedophiles who perhaps would find them enticing...

[Kobi]

There has been so much shared here that makes sense to me.

Gender focused toys do give kids messages and reinforce gender roles. For some kids, this is a good thing. It fits who they are and that is a terrific thing.

For other kids, this type of marketing and messaging can be confusing and incongruent to who they perceive themselves to be. I was one of those kids, so this hits home.

As a female, I rarely enjoyed those things I was supposed to enjoy as a kid. I had a different vision of who I was and who I could be as a female. I was born to be an aunt, not a mother. Progressive thinking for the 50's but not well received.

I also understand the discussions about breast feeding by adult woman. There are many trains of thought as to what is healthiest for the child, what promoting one method of nutrition over the other does to those who cant or do not wish to breastfeed, breastfeeding as a political statement of a womans right to use her body as she wishes etc.

I even understand the different sides of adult breastfeeding as a private or public thing. For some, it is a natural thing. For others it makes them uncomfortable. Goods arguments on both sides of the coin as far as I can see.

I also understand some cultures having the tendency to sexualize, sensualize things and other cultures do not. This can pose a bit of a problem when folks are confronted with cultural things different from their own.

I even understand a parents right to post pictures on the internet as a way to share special moments with relatives and friends. Makes perfect sense to me.

I know all to well that there are persons in our society for whom children and the innocent behavior of children is an erotic experience. For these persons, photos of children just being children, doing children things is a sexual experience. So, what might a picture of a 4 year old girl simulating breastfeeding mean to someone like this? Is it somehow less disturbing to not know who might be fetishizing your child?

I think my difficulty here is trying to reconcile how a parent who normally protects the heck out of their kid, wont let them go into the yard alone, wont leave them with a babysitter or in daycare, will protest when a sex offender moves into the neighborhood, is hypervigilant to anything that might indicate their child might be in danger of some sort, throws caution to the wind when it comes to the internet.

I really just do not get this. Is it refusing to live ones life in fear 24/7 as a potential victim of others? Is it a computer screen giving one a false sense of security, much like a car can do the same thing? Is it ....????????

[Kobi]

I should have added to the above, that as I am not a parent, I never had to grapple with this kind of stuff. So, I dont know what all goes into making a decision that works for any particular individual.

So, I'm trying to understand the parental thinking process in this kind of stuff. I find I can be pretty clueless to stuff outside of my realm of experience.

[*Anya*]

Breastfeeding dolls. Excuse me but who exactly is this company kidding? This is crass commercialism at its worst.

I can see a bunch of business people sitting around a table, brainstorming the next big idea in doll sales: "Hey, I've got it! No one else has a doll that breastfeeds! We will make a killing"!

I am a mother that did breastfeed. I do believe, personally, that it is nature's most perfect food. Can and should all mothers breastfeed? No, of course, not! Are there multiple reasons why many can't or chose not too? Of course! No judgment here!

This has zero to do with encouraging a 4-year old to nurse 20-years later but everything to do with the almighty dollar.

Do I also think our society needs one more damn reason to sexualize or encourage little girls to grow up any faster than they already do?

Hell no!!

[Novelafemme]

"Psychologist Susan Bartell, a contributor to babycenter.com, is "uncomfortable" with the doll in part because the 3- to 6- year-old kids it's intended for "are not developmentally at a point where they think about their bodies in terms of nurturing a baby. This isn't really something they should have to think about," she says.

But Sally Wendkos Olds, author of The Complete Book of Breastfeeding, sees the doll as "a lovely way to introduce the topic to little girls who are interested and curious."

Our society "has eroticized the breasts to such an extent that their true purpose has been forgotten," she adds.

Lost in all the discussion about the doll's cultural relevance is the fact that, at $69.99, it's a pretty expensive investment for a toy that doesn't do very much, says Marianne Szymanski, author of Toy Tips: A Parent's Essential Guide to Smart Toy Choices. "If you're OK with your child doing this kind of play, you can do it for a lot less."

I poked around a wee bit looking for more information and found the above. I have to say I wasn't as visually disturbed by the doll as much as I originally thought I would be. A "real" looking baby doll that attaches its mouth to a little, plastic, flower-shaped binky sewn to a halter-top. The baby cries when it's hungry and burps when it's done eating. I have to say that if this had come out when I was pregnant with my youngest, I might have considered getting it for my then 4 year old.

I totally agree with your thoughts regarding gross commercialism and capitalism, Anya, believe me! But, as a mom with pretty good common sense, I would have purchased the doll because my four year old really struggled when her little sister was born...as some kiddos do when another child enters the family. For a very brief time she reverted back to wearing diapers again during the day, threw big old temper tantrums, and had a melt-down when I needed alone time to nurse her baby sister to sleep. This doll could have made the transition a bit less difficult, who knows? Although, at $70, I might have been the one traumatized in the end!

Traditional heteronormative gender roles are problematic for me as well. Even though there were baby dolls in our house, they were only used as the pretend "victim" in a gruesome three stroller pile-up in the middle of our living room, or found soaking wet in the toilet. My girls both shunned the pretty in pink, baby doll phase of their childhoods. We had a plethora of toys for them to chose from and they simply chose others.

As for pictures on the internet. I'd have to see them for myself before pondering whether or not I would have done the same. I think many of us go through a trial by fire when it comes to learning a lesson about internet friendly information sharing. It took me a couple of times getting into "trouble" for sharing via the interwebs before I decided to be a bit more careful...especially where my daughters are concerned. What seems innocent to me can be taken and bastardized by someone else with ill intent in mind.

All in all, I don't think I have a huge problem with the doll. It's like many things in life...if I don't like it, I just won't buy it. If I have a fundamental issue with it, then I won't shop where the doll is sold. There is some power behind being a consumer.

Lastly, I want to add that breastfeeding is indeed a personal issue for many. I was incredibly sad when my oldest weaned herself at seven months. When my youngest was born she was tongue tied and we were instructed to wait until she was four months old before having her frenulum snipped. So that meant I had to pump around the clock if I wanted her to have my milk. And I did! I was part of a group of attachment parenting moms and babies and I'll never forget the day I showed up toting baby bottles. I was treated like I was the anti-christ and actually left the play group infuriated! These moms had no idea what was in the bottles or why I was bottle feeding yet they judged me in a heartbeat. I was so mad I was spitting nails! Fast-forward three years and I still had a nursing toddler who, just before I finally weaned her, stood in the doorway with one hand on her hip and the other pointing up at me sternly demanding her "milky time." It was a crazy 3.4 years but I loved it and feel very fortunate I was able to experience extended breastfeeding. My sister on the other hand, who has severe PTSD, made the choice not to because it triggered her OCD and made her extremely anxious. It broke her heart not to nurse her two kids but she knew she needed to be mentally well in order to nurture her kiddos the best way she could. And truly, a more wonderful mom I have never before seen! I could whip out my boob anytime, anywhere, slap the baby on there and go about my business. But then again I'm not the worlds most modest person and I have very few (if any) body issues. But I respect each person's individual decision, including whether or not to buy a breastfeeding doll for the child.

Thanks for listening!

[blush]

[/QUOTE]The problem is that the child does not always choose the toy. In most cases, the child doesn't. I kept my Barbies in their boxes in the closet untouched and paid no attention to them whatsoever and extended family members (thankfully my parents were a little smarter) kept getting me Barbie's. I'm definitely not an exception, I'm definitely not the only one who experienced this. Talk to a lot of folks on this very forum (whether butch, femme or trans) and many will tell you that they had the exact same experience. Talk to your local queer community, people assigned male at birth, whether cis or trans, who preferred to play with dolls but were yelled at for even trying. People assigned female at birth who would much rather be playing sports, but were yelled at or told they couldn't because "you're a girl, act like a girl." I'm not talking about "transgendered dolls" I'm talking about society frequently forcing gender stereotypes onto children. All children. I'm talking about society telling girls or children assigned female at birth that they need to want to breastfeed, have children, be "nurturing" and play with toy kitchens.

Like it or not, encouraging nurturing in the case of dolls like this is enforcing gender roles. The advertisements shared here are not asking little boys to breastfeed their dolls in order to "be like mommy," it's targeted to female children.

As far as encouraging nurturing, not all children want to grow up to be "nurturers." It's not a human trait across the board. I'm not going to go and discourage a child who wants to play with that kind of doll from doing so, but neither do I want to see such heavy emphasis on "encouraging" children to be nurturing...especially when girls are so frequently the target.[/QUOTE]

Actually, you kinda proved my point. You were given Barbies and you didn't play with them. The child chooses the toy. I don't like Barbies either, for a myriad of reasons. I don't consider them a nurturing toy.

I find it interesting that you're so bothered by toys that encourage caring behavior.

You're also referencing marketing of toys, which is a whole different ball game. A baby doll is not inherently evil. Marketing a baby doll only to girls is. Many of the messages marketing toys is not healthy. That doesn't make a baby doll unhealthy.

What you're referring to is a lack of options given to children for the toys they want to play with. That is a parenting choice, and differs entirely from the actual toy. A child should be given a healthy choice of toys geared towards their interests, whatever they may be. If a child shows interest in nurturing behavior, they should be given a toy that they can nurture.

[Martina]

Because nurturing has been traditionally assigned to women, we want to discourage girls from being nurturing? That's crazy. What we want to do is encourage people of all genders to be nurturing. i think we all know this. But it did crop up here again.

Give every kid dolls. If someone doesn't want to play with them, great. But the idea that you don't encourage nurturing play, which so many kids love to do, because it might enforce gender stereotypes defies reason. People like to nurture. Kids like to, too. i used to rock my dog endlessly and sing to him. i did not grow up to even have children, but i did like that kind of play.

It's seventies feminism at its worst to say to a girl or woman, oh don't like this because it's associated with women and might cause you to be disempowered by others. The opposite, i suppose, are attachment parenting people who go too far and criticize working mothers.

But discouraging a child from playing with a baby dolls? Huh?

Also, would young girls who do not like dolls dislike them so much if they weren't associated with enforcing stereotypes? If it weren't accompanied with the message, "be more like other girls?" i doubt it. Lots of boys like playing with dolls, and they aren't all gay boys. And look at all the men who groove on childcare. i honestly think it's an unusual child who does not enjoy nurturing something, a plant, an animal -- something.

Moreover we have plenty of games that encourage competetive play and worse. i say more play that encourages nurturing behavior.

[blush]

The problem is that the child does not always choose the toy. In most cases, the child doesn't. I kept my Barbies in their boxes in the closet untouched and paid no attention to them whatsoever and extended family members (thankfully my parents were a little smarter) kept getting me Barbie's. I'm definitely not an exception, I'm definitely not the only one who experienced this. Talk to a lot of folks on this very forum (whether butch, femme or trans) and many will tell you that they had the exact same experience. Talk to your local queer community, people assigned male at birth, whether cis or trans, who preferred to play with dolls but were yelled at for even trying. People assigned female at birth who would much rather be playing sports, but were yelled at or told they couldn't because "you're a girl, act like a girl." I'm not talking about "transgendered dolls" I'm talking about society frequently forcing gender stereotypes onto children. All children. I'm talking about society telling girls or children assigned female at birth that they need to want to breastfeed, have children, be "nurturing" and play with toy kitchens.

Like it or not, encouraging nurturing in the case of dolls like this is enforcing gender roles. The advertisements shared here are not asking little boys to breastfeed their dolls in order to "be like mommy," it's targeted to female children.

As far as encouraging nurturing, not all children want to grow up to be "nurturers." It's not a human trait across the board. I'm not going to go and discourage a child who wants to play with that kind of doll from doing so, but neither do I want to see such heavy emphasis on "encouraging" children to be nurturing...especially when girls are so frequently the target.

Ender, my Goof is transgendered, and we learn daily from each other. I'm not unaware of the horrors of the wrong toy or social expectations that come with those toys. Childhood comes with "toy baggage" for many of us. My point is the individual child should motivate a toy purchase. Not their gender, their gender expectation, or marketing companies.

[Martina]

I have to say that if this had come out when I was pregnant with my youngest, I might have considered getting it for my then 4 year old.


i think it would be a cool toy for a kid, boy or girl, whose mom was breastfeeding. He or she could breastfeed the doll right along with mom. Totally cute.

[EnderD_503]

Actually, you kinda proved my point. You were given Barbies and you didn't play with them. The child chooses the toy. I don't like Barbies either, for a myriad of reasons. I don't consider them a nurturing toy.

Not really. The point is the child doesn't choose the toy. The toy was bought for me. Luckily, unlike most other children, I had a mother who was a tomboy as a child and wasn't fond of pink, frilly dolls herself. So it was no problem for her if I wanted to play sports/be outside, play with a train set or play with lego, instead.

The point is that most children in our society really don't have that choice. I think about my nephew, for example, who has two sisters. He is always being told, by the same family members who never ceased to give me Barbies despite that they already knew what I played with, that he can't play with his sisters' dolls because he's a boy. Most parents are unfortunately pretty rigid, and do struggle with it when their child expresses interest in playing with toys that aren't "gender appropriate." Before he had two younger sisters, he was never even given the opportunity to see a doll to want to play with it. The only reason he even has that potential is because of his sisters.

So no, the kids don't choose the toys in many, many cases. The people who buy the toys choose the toys. So what would motivate most parents to buy this breastfeeding doll for their child? Probably not their kids request in most cases.

I find it interesting that you're so bothered by toys that encourage caring behavior.

I have no issue with parents (not toys) encouraging caring behaviour in their own children. I do have a problem with toys marketed towards girls (and lets not downplay the role of marketing here, because this toy is absolutely being marketed towards girls. Toys don't sell without marketing.) that encourage nurturing behaviour. As far as parents teaching kids to care about other people and how to interact with others, that I have no issue with. But that is up to the parents to demonstrate with their own behaviour and interactions with others around them. It's not the job of a breastfeeding doll or kitchen set or whatever.

The word nurturing itself is completely wrapped up and steeped in implications of "maternal instincts" just as its direct ancestor, nourrir in French means to feed, and going back even further at its origins mean specifically a mother feeding a child through the breast. Quite literally what this doll does.

Those origins are still heavily implicated in the word "nurture." If I care and support a friend/loved one, as far as I'm concerned I am not nurturing them through any kind of developmental stage (which is at the crux of nurturing) nor am I taking part in their upbringing, nor am I raising them. If I care about and support another human being, then it means exactly that: I am caring about them and supporting them.

You're also referencing marketing of toys, which is a whole different ball game. A baby doll is not inherently evil. Marketing a baby doll only to girls is. Many of the messages marketing toys is not healthy. That doesn't make a baby doll unhealthy.

It is not a whole different ball game. It is, in fact, the most important factor in any heavily gendered toy. Action figures are bought for boys because they are heavily marketed towards boys, and the implications of that marketing are completely intertwined with modern society's values and traditional gender roles. Dolls are bought for girls because they are heavily marketed as "gender appropriate toys," and the same thing mentioned above goes for dolls. You cannot take marketing out of the equation, and I would argue that that is actually the majority of the problem here. These toys were created and marketed for a reason, and parents are heavily influenced by those reasons in conjunction with their own upbringing. Nothing is "inherently evil," but nothing is void of the influences which provide it with it's primary role. You cannot, at this stage in our society, take the marketing out of this doll or most other toys, for that matter.

What you're referring to is a lack of options given to children for the toys they want to play with. That is a parenting choice, and differs entirely from the actual toy. A child should be given a healthy choice of toys geared towards their interests, whatever they may be. If a child shows interest in nurturing behavior, they should be given a toy that they can nurture.

A child "should" be given many things. The reality is, they aren't. So we can sit here and theorise about how utopic society should be or could be, or we can actually look at how these toys (and the marketing attached to them) are being used and what they are teaching children as young members of our societies, as influenced by their parents who were in turn influenced by the marketing and their own upbringings, as well as current gender norms.

Edit: I don't know. To me it just seems a matter of practicality as far as creating change in society. In my view, saying something isn't inherently "evil" can detract from what it's actually being used for. I don't really view anything in this world as "evil," personally, but I do see the way everything in the human world has its social functions that can't be escaped. Especially when it comes to children/upbringing. Many parents are essentially trying to "mould" their children with their own values/beliefs at that stage.

Ender, my Goof is transgendered, and we learn daily from each other. I'm not unaware of the horrors of the wrong toy or social expectations that come with those toys. Childhood comes with "toy baggage" for many of us. My point is the individual child should motivate a toy purchase. Not their gender, their gender expectation, or marketing companies.

But the reality is that, in most cases, they aren't the sole motivating factor. In many cases the child doesn't factor in at all.