I was thinking--why is it that little children sleep with baby dolls? Don't they know that sleeping with babies is dangerous? Pillows and covers and parental warmth & such increase the risk of suffocation, and we should take the baby dolls away from the little ones at bedtime so that they learn this important lesson about child care--after all, that's what playing with dollies is all about. Right?
I started thinking about this as my toddler, who has Christened her baby doll "Baby B. . ." (named for her sister), made a playhouse out of my cardboard cutting board and filled it with pillows, then snuggled down with "Baby B. . ." There is a lot of banter out there about children's toys and gender rolls. I didn't withhold baby dolls from my son, he just wasn't interested. And even for Doodle, Buzz Lightyear and Pokemon get equal time with the dollies, not to mention Legos and blocks. Am I an irresponsible academic parent if I admit that the issue doesn't interest me at all? That I played with Barbies and wasn't even remotely traumatized by it? That I want Barbie to have a big bust and small waist like she used to because she looks better that way? (Just don't get me started on Bratz and Disney Princesses--ugh!)
Anyway, I was thinking "Awwww, she must be thinking about how [Chiclette] sleeps with us sometimes!" But well, sleeping with baby dolls is pretty universal, no? It seems to give the same kind of comfort as a stuffed animal, according to the child's preference, regardless of the sleeping arrangements of the child's family, and no one really questions when a child plays with a stuffed animal. So should we accept that an anthropomorphic toy, identifiable with the most vulnerable stage of the species, offers equal comfort to a small child as a cuddly bunny rabbit? There is a case to be made that caring for the dolly is modeled behavior, possibly gendered, maybe socially conditioned--I can talk the talk, you know (also learned behavior). But what about cuddling? Is that learned or instinctual? Yes--the child learns to display affection based on the affection shown to him or her. But beyond that? What about the object that is chosen as suitable for cuddling? (Doodle's preferences change nightly, daily, hourly. . .)
Consider this: Children's preferences for toys to cuddle are impulsive, subject to a myriad of whims, learning opportunities and emotional variations that as adults we have left behind and so can't even begin to understand. Yet, children see the image of a baby as equally cuddly and comforting as, say, a puppy dog. And yet there are adults who would see no contradiction in considering a dog a more fitting, loving, desirable, and comforting companion than a baby. Might we learn something in this area from our children? That while we care for our children, and they depend on us, they are also a source of comfort for us. We hope in and because of them. We feel ourselves to be loved by them, and fulfill ourselves in loving them. The same could be said to apply to moms or dads, if the truth were known.
I'm sure by now everyone is aware of the unfortunate, horrific story out of Austria about the girl who was kept by her father in an underground bunker, repeatedly raped, abused, impregnated. Most of the emphasis has--rightly, I think--been on the inconceivable (to most) evil of the man's actions. But in all of the discussion and coverage, I was amazed at the strength of the woman, to have survived all of the abuse, in the most seemingly hopeless of circumstances. Why did she not give up? Why did she continue to exist? And how did she endure repeated pregnancies stemming from that abuse? Think of the two most oft-cited reasons for permitting abortion: rape and incest. Both present in this case. But we have no evidence that she resented her poor children--trapped in the dungeon-apartment as she was. I am certain that she had to have clung to a faith in God, first of all. But I also feel certain that her children were an unimaginable comfort--that she clung to them instinctively as the only source of love in her dark world.
1 comment:
I found your post quite interesting. When I was young I never slept with comfort objects. But I did sleep with my parents until...well I'll refrain from saying. LilyBaby loves cuddling her baby dolls but she also loves her soft cuddly sheep.
Your thoughts seem akin to some of what I have read about attachment parenting...the idea that both parent and child receive comfort from each other through their close proximity. Interestingly, I find this empowering for the child. The child becomes a source of comfort and pleasure for the parent...not simply the parasitic creature that sucks all life from parents (extreme I know but...). The parent also becomes a source of comfort and pleasure for the child, much needed - I would say - during all stages of childhood in some respect. This, by no means, means that attachment parenting must be practiced in order to achieve the same results. I just like the idea of mutual dependency for parent and child - a concept that gets very little attention in concepts of parenting.
Another thought...I know you don't like the novel but I couldn't help but be reminded of Jane Eyre where Jane turns to her little doll as a source of love and comfort, in part, because she does not experience human love from her aunt/mother-figure. I understand abused children sometimes do the same. I don't know why I thought of that actually. My brain just took a leave for moment. Maybe because it hits on that idea that the baby doll or comfort object is universal and not something that can easily be explained away by social conditioning. Incidentally, I would think boys have their own comfort objects, no? They may not express their affection for them in the same way but _?
I'd love to hear your thoughts on Bratz and Disney Princesses. My husband's niece loves Disney Princesses. We're trying to get LilyBaby to avoid both. Don't ask why...I'm not sure. I think it has more to do with consumerism than gender. Okay, long enough.
Post a Comment