Yes I can see how you got there but that was not in my line of thinking, in fact the thought makes me cringe cus its exactly opposite to who I am.. You see I am from the UK where the "miss World" and all its ghastly ilk have not been shown on TV since about 1972. We are (or at least my socio-economic group) very sensitive to anything that tells our young ladies they should fit into a typical 1950's housewife stereotype.
Dolls to me represent at least part of that stereotype.. I.e Girls play with dolls and boys with mechanical things. When i was at university in the early 80's only 3 out of about 100 of my class were female and I have always thought this to be a tragedy.. We as a nation were missing out on the different perspectives that female professionals could offer.
Now you have also joined the growing list of friends who have Phd's and I "only" have a mere Masters degree... dammit!...:)
Frank
Rest easier, I'm only 4 years into my degree so I have 1-2 more to go. Technically since I'm going straight to PhD, I don't even have a Masters at the moment. ;) But I have tutored math, physics, and engineering for my spending money. I intend to eventually teach engineering for a living. So I think you'll understand how your comment cut particularly deep. Or rather, caused me to rear up and say "Oh no he DIDN'T!"
I think you're suffering from a fundamental misunderstanding of feminist principles, and I think it's a fairly common one. Your approach, based on what you have said is something like "we must quash traditional femininity and empower the women to do the same things as men by raising our girls like our boys!" But really, feminism is about choice, about having the full range of choices. Yes, it's important to expose more girls to more 'masculine' pursuits like building and fixing, but that's only half the equation--boys must also be raised more like girls. I'll refer to frugalparagon:
You wouldn't have a problem with a little boy playing with a doll, right? So why shouldn't a girl? I'm not saying it should be her ONLY toy, but I think all kids of all gender should have at least one doll and at least one truck.
Girls should have blocks, Legos, cars, trains, toolboxes, science experiment kits, telescopes, etc etc. But they should also still have dolls and playhouses.
Boys should also have blocks, Legos, cars, trains, toolboxes, etc etc. But they need dolls and stuffed animals and toy kitchens and vacuum cleaners no less than girls do. They should learn to cook, clean, sew, and hold a baby.
Like I said before, dolls are *not* just about learning mothering/caretaking behaviors, they are typically used more for acting things out (particularly when they aren't baby dolls). For make-believe. For pretend. A friend of mine pointed out that research has shown kids who don't get enough of that kind of imaginative, role-playing type of play don't learn to empathize as well as kids who do. They apparently have a higher likelihood of becoming psychopaths.
Analytical skills are great and I fully encourage learning of them by ALL kids. But we live in a world of people, and empathizing and working with them are also important. Arguably, more important. Even in tech fields, teamwork, creativity, and user-centered design methods all require empathizing and working with other people. Exactly the things that kids learn from playing with dolls (yes, also by playing with other kids, but that's not always an option, and it's different).
You know what really does bother me about dolls today? Most of them are pink, and frilly, and prissy. THAT we don't need. But what I've seen of AGD's, they are *less* prone to pinkification (they're getting there, unfortunately). The historical bent of them was really cool, and they focused on the dolls'/girls' actions, adventures, and problem solving rather than fashion sense. Like I said, this is changing, and the whole hair salon/cafe thing they have going on is silly. But the dolls are well-made and worth repairing (I know because my sister got one from a friend), so the price tag is a question of value/values. But basically, dolls themselves are not the problem. The types of dolls and the *upbringing* above all is what determines
If my interpretation of your response made you cringe, I think you should think about your response. Because two other ladies who read this conversation (up to last night), interpreted you the same way. What you effectively did, in our interpretation(s), was suggest that instead of being in the "1950's femininity" box, girls should be put in a new box where they *have* to essentially be tomboys. That's not the point. The point is options, possibilities, diversity. The point is that I can pursue an advanced degree in engineering while drinking fruity "girly" drinks. And while I prefer jeans and hoodies, some of my colleagues dress up and wear makeup daily. They have that choice. I also know women who want to focus on being mothers...one, after getting her PhD in Math. It's a valid choice, as long as it IS a choice. When it comes down to it, skills and toys should just not be gendered...I can cook, clean, sew, hold/soothe a baby (I don't have one...yet...I practice on my friends'), probably change and wash a diaper, but also disassemble and unclog a drain, fix a vacuum cleaner, pitch a tent, start a fire, and open my own doors, thank you very much. I have no car skills because my dad wasn't handy and always took it to a mechanic. I'm hoping my bf will teach me when I/we get a car, though. :D
I apologize to everyone for the textwall.