Would you accept a son playing with dolls?

[Mary_Gail_36]

THIS. In fact, the original GI Joes from the '60s were (IINM) basically Barbie Dolls for boys. It was only the '70s petroleum shortage that shrunk them down to the 3-1/4" action figures of my mid-'80s childhood memories

I remember the bigger version of GI Joe. My cousins had them. They were not particularly nice to my Ken. They made fun of his suit.

 

[pianistclare]

Worrying about it can potentially causes problems that were never there in the first place.
The other thread WAY overthought the whole thing.

My husband had a doll that a little girl gave him as small child, She wanted to bring a present to her country cousin. Joe played with it…envisioned it was a soldier baby. Envisioned it was an alien. Pretended it was sibling he desperately wanted. And one day, he took a play sword and lopped the head off and tossed it in the bushes.
He had fun, and discarded it eventually. He wasn’t scarred for life, and didn’t grow up to be a violent person.
He says if he had a son who picked up a doll he wouldn’t give it any thought or worry.

I am considered fairly “girly” in my personal tastes, and I always hated dolls, much to my mother’s dismay. I always felt they were staring at me and asked her to give them away or throw them away. I just thought they were creepy.

It really doesn’t matter.

 

[Arizona_Fat_Gir]

As long as it’s not “Chuckie” from “Child’s Play” it’s all right.

 

[Allegra]

I think a mirror question to the mentioned thread would be would you request a barbie or other doll a or hairclip at a fast food place for your son even though they offer a male toy with stem lesson…because you want your son to have the same nuturing and artistic opportunities as little girls.

What’s artistic and nurturing about a fake, immovable Barbie and hairclips? Actually, what’s artistic and nurturing about the real Barbie? Half of what Barbie wears, I wouldn’t let my daughter wear ever. The last time I bought one was for a little girl on the Giving Tree. The only thing missing from the ensemble of the dolls I found at Target was the word “Hooters” emblazoned in silk screen across their plastic boobs! Frankly, I’d be a little weirded out if my son wanted one of those. Now a baby doll, on the other hand, wouldn’t bother me a bit, nor does it bother me when Little Man uses Sissy’s tea set to cook and serve mudpies. Anyway, my point in the other thread was that NO kid should have to play with something as lame as the fake Barbie or unusable handbag while other kids get cars that race across the diningroom, just because they’re girls.

 

[EasterJoy]

What’s artistic and nurturing about a fake, immovable Barbie and hairclips? Actually, what’s artistic and nurturing about the real Barbie? Half of what Barbie wears, I wouldn’t let my daughter wear ever. The last time I bought one was for a little girl on the Giving Tree. The only thing missing from the ensemble of the dolls I found at Target was the word “Hooters” emblazoned in silk screen across their plastic boobs! Frankly, I’d be a little weirded out if my son wanted one of those. Now a baby doll, on the other hand, wouldn’t bother me a bit, nor does it bother me when Little Man uses Sissy’s tea set to cook and serve mudpies. Anyway, my point in the other thread was that NO kid should have to play with something as lame as the fake Barbie or unusable handbag while other kids get cars that race across the diningroom, just because they’re girls.

Meaning: it is lame if the child says it is lame. I agree! With the exception of preferring good character over bad character–such as limiting Barbie to decent clothing, for example–don’t try to shoehorn a child’s interests into what you think those interests ought to be. It does not work, and it can cause the kind of upset that your child will lay at your feet when the child is 40 years old. (I could tell you a story about a friend I met as an adult who was still disappointed years later that her mom never allowed her to have a Barbie.)

Every child’s toy is fake compared to the real thing. The cars do not have engines that burn petroleum, the action figures are more or less immovable with accessories that do not “do” anything, and the appliances in the kitchens won’t chop or heat or refrigerate the fake food. That’s OK.

The right toys for a particular child become very realistic if an active imagination is applied. A rag baby with yarn for hair and sewn-on eyes can be just as lovable and perhaps more cuddly than a “realistic” one. Our children made all sorts of playthings they valued very much using tape, markers, and what they could scrounge out of the recycling bin.

The only thing that is important is how a particular plaything engages the imagination and affection of a particular child. Boys do not automatically go through anything that will slow their progress in becoming fine men when they play with dolls. If your child becomes a disappointing version of himself or herself when playing with a certain toy, if the toy seems an occasion to fantasize about doing bad things, whatever the toy is, that’s about the only thing I’d mean by a “bad toy” when the child likes playing with it. Otherwise, I would not concern myself about it.

 

[mommy_k]

What’s artistic and nurturing about a fake, immovable Barbie and hairclips? Actually, what’s artistic and nurturing about the real Barbie? Half of what Barbie wears, I wouldn’t let my daughter wear ever. The last time I bought one was for a little girl on the Giving Tree. The only thing missing from the ensemble of the dolls I found at Target was the word “Hooters” emblazoned in silk screen across their plastic boobs! Frankly, I’d be a little weirded out if my son wanted one of those. Now a baby doll, on the other hand, wouldn’t bother me a bit, nor does it bother me when Little Man uses Sissy’s tea set to cook and serve mudpies. Anyway, my point in the other thread was that NO kid should have to play with something as lame as the fake Barbie or unusable handbag while other kids get cars that race across the diningroom, just because they’re girls.

Personally, I throw away McDonald toys on the rare occaision dh goes there. they are are nuisance toys.

To be concerned about a toy that one gets for free because it does not have a stem lesson is strange to me…I don’t have time for that.

If I wanted toys that instructed this or anything else…I would not depend on McDonald’s or think society somehow does this on purpose to keep girls away fom the sciences .Since stem was mentioned in regard to a hot wheels toy…It was also the title …it was not about what is more fun…

Once posters started using words to describe being a wife and mother as drudge work, menial, boring, is when I posted. It was extremely insulting…

 

[ShrodingersCat]

Personally, I throw away McDonald toys on the rare occaision dh goes there. they are are nuisance toys.

To be concerned about a toy that one gets for free because it does not have a stem lesson is strange to me…I don’t have time for that.

If I wanted toys that instructed this or anything else…I would not depend on McDonald’s or think society somehow does this on purpose to keep girls away fom the sciences .Since stem was mentioned in regard to a hot wheels toy…It was also the title …it was not about what is more fun…

Once posters started using words to describe being a wife and mother as drudge work, menial, boring, is when I posted. It was extremely insulting…

I think you are missing the point of the earlier thread regarding STEM.

I didn’t see the comment about being a wife and mother being boring on the other thread but most of the people on the thread WERE SAHMs. I don’t think anyone was attacking anyone else and if a SAHM finds housework boring is she not allowed express that opinion? My mum was a SAHM and she hated every aspect of housework that you can think of. Plus, women with careers are often ALSO wives and mothers - why would they degrade something that they do themselves and KNOW is difficult?

Do you not think a working mum might be insulted by a perceived implication that she somehow isn’t a good wife and mother?

 

[ToeInTheWater]

mommy k, I admit to using the term “menial drudge” but I wasn’t actually referring to SAHMS themselves. It was a quick way of explaining the societal hierarchy in the Brave New World story. My point wasn’t that SAHMS actually are menial drudges, but to counter the assumption that girls learning about math and science, will somehow keep them from being good wives and mothers, I think this assumption does imply a SAHM only needs as much education as a menial drudge would.

And to me, the idea that girls should be denied education in certain subjects merely to ensure they can’t step out of the “wife and mother” role even if they wanted to, strikes me as an idea more worthy of the Taliban than an idea worthy of Christians.

I should also point out that I decry anti-intellectualism in general, find a disturbing current of that in some fundamentalist Protestants (think of the Gothardites, for example), and find that mainstream Catholic thought is NOT anti-intellectual, and when I do come across it, it always makes me wrinkle my nose.

…I would not depend on McDonald’s or think society somehow does this on purpose to keep girls away fom the sciences

I would also not assume, as many Traditionalists did on that topic, that “secular society” or “feminists” or whomever, is encouraging girls to have an interested in the sciences on purpose to keep them away from being wives and mothers.

Do you not think a working mum might be insulted by a perceived implication that she somehow isn’t a good wife and mother?

I agree with **Shrodinger’s Cat **that it is also insulting to assume that the only way to fulfill a vocation as a wife and mother is to be a SAHM, yet that was the underlying assumption there - that a woman can either have a career, or be a wife and mother, but cannot do both - though of course, men can, but apparently being a husband and father is just a part-time hobby for men, or something.

But this ignores not only working moms, but women who are going to spend many years NOT being wives and mothers, but who apparently shouldn’t be wasting her time getting educated so she can have a career during that time. As I mentioned in the other topic, unless the plan is to keep a daughter at home learning how to be a wife and mother until she marries like the Duggars do, that is not a realistic option for most people in today’s society.

 

[EasterJoy]

I think you are missing the point of the earlier thread regarding STEM.

I didn’t see the comment about being a wife and mother being boring on the other thread but most of the people on the thread WERE SAHMs. I don’t think anyone was attacking anyone else and if a SAHM finds housework boring is she not allowed express that opinion? My mum was a SAHM and she hated every aspect of housework that you can think of. Plus, women with careers are often ALSO wives and mothers - why would they degrade something that they do themselves and KNOW is difficult?

Do you not think a working mum might be insulted by a perceived implication that she somehow isn’t a good wife and mother?

The relationship between women who work for a salary and women who don’t because they do their own childcare is very complicated, and it is partly complicated by the “you can do it all” myth. Women who miss events in their children’s lives that their SAHM sisters do not miss often feel guilty about it, even if staying at home is not a realistic option for them and regardless of who is caring for their children when they are not there to do it themselves.

SAHMs, meanwhile, do deal with cabin fever, they often do wish they had the amount of adult conversation and adult activities that women who work for a salary have, even as much as they are grateful that they have so much time with their children. They also do run up against the “what do you do?” expectations that says that doing child care deserves to be a low-paying job for people who don’t have enough going to get a job doing something else.

This can put the prospect of doing all the academic work required to train for a STEM career as something of an “opposition” to being a SAHM, particularly since the STEM fields were dominated by men for so long. No one has to say “I don’t think that being a SAHM is good enough for someone with my aptitudes.” That message is given and taken without anyone consciously doing it.

I say this as a SAHM with a PhD in a STEM field.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

The relationship between women who work for a salary and women who don’t because they do their own childcare is very complicated, and it is partly complicated by the “you can do it all” myth. Women who miss events in their children’s lives that their SAHM sisters do not miss often feel guilty about it, even if staying at home is not a realistic option for them and regardless of who is caring for their children when they are not there to do it themselves.

SAHMs, meanwhile, do deal with cabin fever, they often do wish they had the amount of adult conversation and adult activities that women who work for a salary have, even as much as they are grateful that they have so much time with their children. They also do run up against the “what do you do?” expectations that says that doing child care deserves to be a low-paying job for people who don’t have enough going to get a job doing something else.

I personally do NOT think this about SAHMS, I also would point out that I do not think a mother’s role in raising children is just about “child care” in the sense of merely meeting physical needs by changing their diapers and feeding them. Same for fathers, actually

Teaching children to be moral upstanding people is NOT something that I’d even expect a hired day care worker to do, and I certainly don’t think that a baby-sitter should be providing religious education, but I would expect parents to do so.

I do think that many who state something like “God made women to be wives and mothers” expect all women not only to be SAHMs by default, but to love and enjoy every second of it, and if they have any complaints they are somehow being selfish and sinful. I come across this more often in Fundamental Protestant circles than Catholic ones, though.

And while I guess there are feminists out there who would frown on a working mother who felt guilty for missing, say, a child’s first steps, I don’t think this is quite as common.

No one has to say “I don’t think that being a SAHM is good enough for someone with my aptitudes.” That message is given and taken without anyone consciously doing it.

I find this comment quite unfair, it is essentially stating that “even if people claim not to be denigrating SAHMS they are doing it anyway, their own perceptions of their motives are not valid”. It is a comment that essentially accuses people on the other side, of not having a good faith discussion.

I could just as well state the following, with as much justification:

No one has to say “I don’t think that WMs are good enough at being wives and mothers compared to SAHMs.” That message is given and taken without anyone consciously doing it.

ETA: It also seems that the people who grudgingly “allow” mothers to work out of financial necessity expect them to hate whatever work they are doing, and feel abysmally guilty every minute for “abandoning” their children. If they actually enjoy their work, then they are going against God’s design for them, even if they “have” to work.

 

[JanetF]

I remember the bigger version of GI Joe. My cousins had them. They were not particularly nice to my Ken. They made fun of his suit.

My brother’s GI Joe blew up my Barbie circa 1970. The things you could do with cap gun tapes…

 

[EasterJoy]

I personally do NOT think this about SAHMS, I also would point out that I do not think a mother’s role in raising children is just about “child care” in the sense of merely meeting physical needs by changing their diapers and feeding them. Same for fathers, actually

Teaching children to be moral upstanding people is NOT something that I’d even expect a hired day care worker to do, and I certainly don’t think that a baby-sitter should be providing religious education, but I would expect parents to do so.

I do think that many who state something like “God made women to be wives and mothers” expect all women not only to be SAHMs by default, but to love and enjoy every second of it, and if they have any complaints they are somehow being selfish and sinful. I come across this more often in Fundamental Protestant circles than Catholic ones, though.

And while I guess there are feminists out there who would frown on a working mother who felt guilty for missing, say, a child’s first steps, I don’t think this is quite as common.

I find this comment quite unfair, it is essentially stating that “even if people claim not to be denigrating SAHMS they are doing it anyway, their own perceptions of their motives are not valid”. It is a comment that essentially accuses people on the other side, of not having a good faith discussion.

I could just as well state the following, with as much justification:

ETA: It also seems that the people who grudgingly “allow” mothers to work out of financial necessity expect them to hate whatever work they are doing, and feel abysmally guilty every minute for “abandoning” their children. If they actually enjoy their work, then they are going against God’s design for them, even if they “have” to work.

Let me clarify: I don’t think there are many people who think most of the things that mothers worry about.

You go to a party stocked entirely with adults you do not know, someone asks what you do, you say you’re a SAHM, and the answer you get is “oh.” Many people do not know what to say when they hear that is what you do. This is not an experience that has to be repeated too many times before a SAHM starts projecting not-very-nice things that were never said! Why? Because we all have fears in the back of our minds, and the fear of a SAHM is that when someone has nothing to say about how she spends her days, it is because they have nothing nice to say. Is that fair? No. Is that reality? Of course it is. So while the other person may have really felt anything from pity to envy to utter uncertainty about what would be considered a nice thing to say, few SAHMs have the inner security to take away a nice warm feeling from these encounters (and they are by no means rare).

Likewise, when a SAHM talks about what she does all day, of course the salaried mothers who don’t do those things worry that the SAHM thinks less of her because she is off making money instead of spending her hours in direct contact with her family. The SAHM may never say a word about being the one who picks up the salaried mom’s kids to take them to practice and so on, may even feel lucky to be the one who gets to do it, but the salaried mom might very easily worry that SAHM mom is biting her tongue and not repeating a lot of the self-punishing inner dialogue that the salaried mom might have.

That is what I meant by the “you can have it all” myth. No, you can’t have it all. There are only so many hours in a day. The idea that somehow you ought to manage to have it all–that is, work a full-time job that uses the talents you have that are needed in the “adult” world while also giving your child all of the contact time either of you could ever want-- leaves parents, especially women but also some dads, vulnerable to the negative self-talk when they inevitably cannot do anything like “it all.”

As far as grudgingly “allowing” parents to decide how many of each parent’s life is going to be dedicated to bringing home a salary, it is the couples who really do have the choice who probably feel the greatest sense of self-questioning about their decision. A parent who stays at home because she can’t bring home a salary that would cover the cost of child care or the parent who works for a salary because her family will want for necessities if he or she does not will not feel the self-second-guessing that parents who make a choice when they really could do either one.

Yes, I have been told, by the way, that staying home is a waste of my STEM-type education. There are busy-bodies out there who have their opinion about what everyone else ought to do. What you mostly hear, though, is “I could never stay home with my kids all day, I’d get too bored it would drive me crazy.” That doesn’t exactly give the message that you’re spending your time well.

 

[Allegra]

Personally, I throw away McDonald toys on the rare occaision dh goes there. they are are nuisance toys.

To be concerned about a toy that one gets for free because it does not have a stem lesson is strange to me…I don’t have time for that.

If I wanted toys that instructed this or anything else…I would not depend on McDonald’s or think society somehow does this on purpose to keep girls away fom the sciences .Since stem was mentioned in regard to a hot wheels toy…It was also the title …it was not about what is more fun…

Once posters started using words to describe being a wife and mother as drudge work, menial, boring, is when I posted. It was extremely insulting…

Wow. That was high on the sanctimonious scale! My concern was not that McDonalds doesn’t always provide a STEM lesson with their toys, but that they provide them or not based on a child’s gender. The quality of the toy (aka…funness) is also significantly different, based on gender. Both are unfair, in my opinion, but the science issue is probably more important.

No, it isn’t McDonald’s job to teach children science and I don’t think the are purposefully trying to keep girls out of science. I think they are trying to sell food of questionable quality. But my concern is that this oversight is symptomatic of a destructive misconception that girls can’t or shouldn’t bother learning science.
And, by the way, the toys are not free, they are purchased. And I’m charged the same about if I buy a meal for my son as for my daughter.

 

[ShrodingersCat]

Great post EasterJoy: very insightful!

 

[Sarcelle]

So there is a Parenting topic essentially about a girl who likes to play with cars and trains, and apparently this is not a traditionally “girly” interest, but no one has come outright and stated such an interest is inappropriate and that the parents should discourage it. Even though the topic has evolved to cover whether God made women to be wives and mothers and not have paying jobs, whether endeavors to get more girls to consider STEM fields are justified or going against their “God given nature”, etc.

That topic hasn’t really discussed the phenomenon of boys who are interested in “girly” subjects. And I myself have encountered more “tomboys” than whatever the male equivalent is. But I do know one young man who played with dolls as a kid, and is planning on becoming a nurse. AFAIK he is not gay or transgender or anything like that. His parents are fine with his career plans, indeed are very proud of him for going into a career that will give him a chance to help others.

However, since CAF is very conservative and traditional, I wondered if this would be acceptable to the CAFers here who are parents. Would you let your sons play with dolls? Or is this young man sinning in some way? Is he going against the way God designed him?

Boys already do play with dolls. They’re just called action figures.

In fact. I know grown men that collect Iron Man action figures. Some of them can cost as much as $800.00.

 

[Sarcelle]

No problem. I wasn’t a fan of dolls (nothing against them, just prefer stuffed animals) so didn’t get one for our daughter until she was two - and that was because she made her own baby doll out of a bag of popcorn with a ribbon tied around it. So cute!

As her little brother got bigger, they both played with her dolls. She “taught” him to take the heads off Barbies.

He preferred Lego figures to dolls, tho he eventually had a set of army guys.

Just have to add this funny story about a doll. I still have the life-size toddler doll that was my 7th birthday present. I keep her on the rocking chair when I’m not using it. We were having work done last summer in the house, & I kept finding my sweater draped over the doll’s head. Turns out the very manly contractor is very weirded out by dolls! I kept her in my bedroom after finding out about his phobia.

I have a fear of dolls. So much so that I will not sleep in a room that has one.

They are just plain creepy, especially the clown dolls.

 

[Sarcelle]

Ok, I know I said I was out of here, but I can’t help myself.
Which is completely unrelated to boys playing with dolls. I spent the first 20 years of my marriage cooking on weekends, always did my share of changing diapers, etc. Ended up having to take care of the kids and the house all by myself for an extended period of time. the priest is obviously correct. Guess what, men figure it out. And there is nothing wrong with teaching you son how to cook. My boys certainly take a lot of interest in my cooking. Boys in college have to learn how to do laundry. And none of us ever had to play with dolls or do any type of female role-playing.

Playing with Buzz Lightyear or Ironman action figures is hardly female role playing.

Technically, Buzz and Ironman action figures are dolls. So playing with them does not mean female role playing.

 

[CatholicSpirit]

I think it’s pretty cool to realize that both Superman and Goku from Dragonball have the same story line as Jesus. They came from far away above Earth to save us from the evil guys that want us destroyed. That’s why sometimes I say Jesus was the ultimate hero, he even inspired heroes!

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I was very busy being a girl growing up and I played ball, did wood working, changed the oil, went fishing. And while I was at it, I cleaned the kitchen and made sure my room was clean.
I would hope that a father would not exclude their daughters from these things just because their anatomy is female.

Well, apparently to play ball with a girl, teach them woodworking, teach them to change the oil, or to take a gasp girl fishing is to kowtow to the idea of a gender-neutral society.

And BTW one of the people who work at the service station I take my car to , is a woman. She obviously knows how to change the oil in a car. Is she somehow going against the way God made her?

ETA: And BTW my mother played softball in college so she knew how to throw a ball better than my father. My parents still have tables I made in shop class in elementary school. I don’t have time to change the oil in my car, hence I take it to the service station, but I could if I wanted to. My father did take me fishing, I never found it that interesting but still appreciate that he did.

 

[misspriss]

My son (4) plays “babies” all the time with my daughter and without her. He plays with the baby dolls at Mothers Day Out, in a class full of boys.

Of course, DD also plays with his action figures. They go back and forth, which I think is just perfect.