5 ms·
My friend's youngest is little miss princess. Everything has to be pink and sparkly, and tiaras are the height of fashion. My friend was pretty dismayed at fir
by common_crow 6y ago
My friend's youngest is little miss princess. Everything has to be pink and sparkly, and tiaras are the height of fashion.
My friend was pretty dismayed at first, because she's quite feminist and has been very careful to raise her daughter with gender neutral toys, media, etc. All her family and friends have taken similar precautions, and if anything, this kid has been raised to see "girly girl" things as quite negative.
Ultimately, my friend came to the same conclusion as you--you can only shape your kid so much. For whatever reason, her daughter is just naturally obsessed with being a princess. Genetics probably play a role, plus other far more subtle environmental factors.
My friend has embraced her duaghter's interests--after all, feminism is all about letting women chase whatever interests and life paths they want! But we still chuckle at how unlikely it seems for her, of all people, to have a daughter so obsessed with pink.
- JoeAltmaier 6y agoA Princess can absolutely be an Astronaut as well. No contradiction at all. It's not about the details; its about the encouragement.
- judge2020 6y agoMars will need its own queen at some point, so there’s no issue with being both.
- jaredsohn 6y agoHas been done in fiction: https://www.amazon.com/Princess-Astronaut-Vivienne-Kumar/dp/1980568871 https://www.amazon.com/Princess-Astronaut-Vivienne-Kumar/dp/... In reality, the number of astronauts is pretty limited as is the number of princesses so it is just probabilistically unlikely that there is some combination. In fact, I bet the percentage of princess astronauts vs. non-princess astronauts is pretty close.
- im3w1l 6y agoWouldn't surprise me if a princesses are more likely to become astronauts than an average person. If they really want to go to space they have things to offer in return.
- tropdrop 6y agoGood point – we need not marry careers to color. People always forget "pink" used to be a color reserved for little boys (as a derivative of red) and baby blue for little girls (derivative of indigo).
- 1strepublicusr 6y agoPrincess Bubblegum in Adventure Time is a scientist.
- topkai22 6y agoFor sure- One of the best junior developers I’ve mentored placed top ten in the Miss America competition.
- renerthr 6y agoThat sounds like a very interesting story. Is she willing to do some sort of AMA? (Either here on other forum)
- eat_veggies 6y agoIt would be incredibly weird to hold an AMA about someone else
- war1025 6y ago> with gender neutral toys Our pediatrician made a quip once about a family that came in and said "Our girl only plays with the dolls and our boy only plays with the trucks" despite the parents doing the whole "gender neutral toys" thing. And her response was, "Yes, duh, that's what little boys and girls do" My experience is that it's good not to limit what your children are exposed to or have available, but don't be surprised at all if they fit nearly every stereotype regarding boys vs girls.
- 7402 6y ago> And her response was, "Yes, duh, that's what little boys and girls do" That's what primates do. See Chimp "Girls" Play With "Dolls" Too—First Wild Evidence, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/12/101220-chimpanzees-play-nature-nurture-science-animals-evolution/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/12/101220-chimp... (To read article while skipping demand for email address, turn off JavaScript.)
- pvarangot 6y agoSo the pediatrician was basically implying that saying that trucks are for boys and dolls for girls is a construct of a part of society trying to reproduce its politically charged gender roles is a construct of a part of society trying to reproduce its politically charged gender roles?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- danans 6y agoThe reason people worry about their daughters' having an affinity for princess stuff is rational. It is because, however unfair and wrong, as a society we have associated those symbols with disempowerment and subjugation to men, and our culture has echoed and amplified that association, because it sells. At the end of the day nobody wants their child disempowered, and many would make the terrible choice of suppressing their child's tendencies in order to protect them from that injustice.
- ALittleLight 6y agoI think a handful of ideologues have arbitrarily assigned those symbols negative meanings. There's nothing bad about girls playing with girly toys and to say that a child is subjugating herself to men because she imagines being a princess or a mom is a perverse interpretation of a normal childhood fantasy. It's also illogical - princesses having power over most men.
- danans 6y ago> I think a handful of ideologues have arbitrarily assigned those symbols negative meanings. What's more likely, a "handful of ideologues" assigning these symbols, or the combined history of disempowerment of women throughout history assigning the symbols, which only started being disassembled this past century? > There's nothing bad about girls playing with girly toys You misunderstood what I wrote. I wholeheartedly agree there is nothing wrong with it at all. But embracing those aesthetic tendencies (which have nothing to do with being a mom) comes with a cost to the individual in society, not the least of which are being slotted as intellectually inferior. You'd have to purposely ignore the historical cultural signaling to deny it. > It's also illogical - princesses having power over most men. This is wholly irrelevant to the discussion, since we are talking about figurative princesses, not literal princesses who are daughters of aristocrats.
- ALittleLight 6y agoYou're right that I am misunderstanding what you wrote. I continue to not understand what you are writing. I'm not even sure if we are in disagreement or not. My position is that there are a handful of ideologues who have perverse beliefs that typically feminine things are bad or demeaning. These people are left-wing, academic, modern feminist types. They think things like "Wanting to be a princess is synonymous to wanting to subjugate yourself to men" or "Wanting to be a housewife will make people think you aren't intelligent". The reality is that women and girls are, on average, predisposed towards "girly" stereotypes. More girls are interested in aesthetics, talking, emotions, etc. In the same way boys are more likely interested in things like fighting, guns, dinosaurs, trucks, etc. I think we should be equally fine with anyone interested in any set of subjects, but I also contend that the people I referenced earlier argue that girls doing typically girly things are undesirable and girls should be encouraged to pursue interests that boys typically do.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Cullinet 6y agothis is like the cutest rebellion ever!