Posting Pics of kid breastfeeding dolls

[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.