Posting Pics of kid breastfeeding dolls

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

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]

Originally Posted by Novelafemme

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]

Originally Posted by blush

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.

Originally Posted by blush

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.

Originally Posted by blush

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.

Originally Posted by blush

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.

Originally Posted by blush

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.