Evan Urquhart

cont... If I stood up, went to run around, didn't hold the doll like a real baby, would be told again in the same faux concern way "oh your poor dolly! Got to look after her, maybe find her a bottle?" And saying "it's just a doll, can I put it away?" was seen as monstrous.

William's words really struck a chord with me. I really liked dolls, and had a favorite doll who I named Baby Janet after my mother (oof, what's going on there, huh?).

But even as a confirmed doll-liker I recognized this dynamic with baby dolls- and no other toys- where you couldn't hold them wrong or be rough with them or use their hard plastic heads as a weapon to hit your sister.

OK, maaaaybe you shouldn't be hitting your sister with any hard plastic toys- but only with a baby doll would there be almost as much concern for the poor dolly as there was for your poor sissy!

William came up with this idea that dolls are Not For Play. In his words: "I will cuddle and love and befriend and anything with a face. But those baby dollies were so solidly Not For Play, they couldn't be a dragon slayer or a journalist or talk back or have stories"

Now, I don't think this is universal. My Baby Janet was the queen of the toys. She was in charge, told every other toy what to do, and demanded to be the center of attention at all times. But I still think William's point is incredibly perceptive.

When we instruct AFAB children in how to hold and treat a baby doll, we're not letting them play with it. When they do as instructed, they're not playing. And, it's DEFINITELY not encouraging play when we scold a child for treating a bit of plastic with a face too roughly.

It's something else entirely. It's a chore, or a punishment. And, to the extent that baby dolls are primarily used as a chore or a punishment to coerce AFABs into perform nurturing on demand, they're not really toys. As William put it, they're Not For Playing.