3 ms·

The 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

by danans 6y ago

The 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 ago
I 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 ago
    You'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.
    - danans 6y ago
      My argument is that predisposition (AKA nature) is only one aspect of identity, and that nurture plays a very important role. The nurture side (regardless of what direction you nurture in) has strong connections to cultural power structures that are loosely connected to nature, but far more connected to history. Survival in society requires a lot of adaptation to cultural power structures and symbols, and that can rationally mean nurturing a child in the direction that might run against their natural disposition. Another example less encumbered by the topic of gender: a parent might rationally make a non-athletically predisposed child play sports because the child can learn useful teamwork skills through their participation.
smogcutter 6y ago
> At the end of the day nobody wants their child disempowered Worth considering that this statement being obviously true and unobjectionable even when applied to daughters is the result of difficult work by generations of women, a part of which has been criticism of which portrayals of women are made available to young girls. You can argue that that criticism has become less relevant today, but ironically that’s in part thanks to the critics’ success.
jlawson 6y ago
Lots of men and women prefer to be submissive in some or many contexts, whether personal or professional. Our overculture highly values the drive to dominate, win, take control, but make no mistake - this is not the inherent imperative of all human beings. In fact, surveys indicate that at least in the sexual arena, about 75% of women prefer to be submissive. Many men do as well. This is the basis for consensual BDSM. And lots of people do, as adults, more or less consciously prefer to be submissive in their life to bosses or spouses. There are many wise reasons to choose this path. It may be true that parents don't want their child disempowered. However, it may also true that, at least as much as a child can want anything, the child wants to be disempowered. I find it really interesting that you and others don't even realize this is a possiblity - that's how much submission has been denigrated in our culture. That means that the parents are pushing their child to do something against her own preferences and away from her own happiness, just because they don't like it. A rather foolish and selfish thing to do. But it's understandable given how little our culture can even acknowledge the value of honorable and confident submission.
- danans 6y ago
  > But it's understandable given how little our culture can even acknowledge the value of honorable and confident submission. That's because outside of very specific contexts, "honorable and confident submission" doesn't exist. Yes, respectful power differences in otherwise mutually beneficial relationships naturally exist, whether those relationships are platonic, professional, romantic, or very concretely in the context of activities like BDSM. These are, however, characterized by clear limits and boundaries, and a mutual agreement about the benefit of the relationship, including the power difference. But social subjugation is not the same thing. It's about being disempowered in situations where there is no trust relationship that puts boundaries on the exercise of that power against the disempowered. For example, it's a job interview where someone's abilities are cast in doubt because their interviewer perceives their "princess" appearance or mannerisms. That people conflate the two very distinct scenarios is baffling. The difference between them is quite simply a huge gulf of trust.
  - FooBarBizBazz 6y ago
FooBarBizBazz 6y ago
It's possible to rotate all this. "Princess" is a great job to have. It's 100% monarchical privilege and zero responsibility. There's nothing disempowering about it. The shiny "baubles" are symbolic gemstones. A little girl drawn to "being a princess" is like a little boy drawn to "being a rich guy" with a monocle and a top-hat. (We have even met the man that little boy grows into: Donald Trump.) Behold I have just set up a totally different complex of associations.

by danans 6y ago

ALittleLight 6y ago

I 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 ago
  You'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.
  - danans 6y ago
    My argument is that predisposition (AKA nature) is only one aspect of identity, and that nurture plays a very important role. The nurture side (regardless of what direction you nurture in) has strong connections to cultural power structures that are loosely connected to nature, but far more connected to history. Survival in society requires a lot of adaptation to cultural power structures and symbols, and that can rationally mean nurturing a child in the direction that might run against their natural disposition. Another example less encumbered by the topic of gender: a parent might rationally make a non-athletically predisposed child play sports because the child can learn useful teamwork skills through their participation.

smogcutter 6y ago

> At the end of the day nobody wants their child disempowered Worth considering that this statement being obviously true and unobjectionable even when applied to daughters is the result of difficult work by generations of women, a part of which has been criticism of which portrayals of women are made available to young girls. You can argue that that criticism has become less relevant today, but ironically that’s in part thanks to the critics’ success.

jlawson 6y ago

Lots of men and women prefer to be submissive in some or many contexts, whether personal or professional. Our overculture highly values the drive to dominate, win, take control, but make no mistake - this is not the inherent imperative of all human beings. In fact, surveys indicate that at least in the sexual arena, about 75% of women prefer to be submissive. Many men do as well. This is the basis for consensual BDSM. And lots of people do, as adults, more or less consciously prefer to be submissive in their life to bosses or spouses. There are many wise reasons to choose this path. It may be true that parents don't want their child disempowered. However, it may also true that, at least as much as a child can want anything, the child wants to be disempowered. I find it really interesting that you and others don't even realize this is a possiblity - that's how much submission has been denigrated in our culture. That means that the parents are pushing their child to do something against her own preferences and away from her own happiness, just because they don't like it. A rather foolish and selfish thing to do. But it's understandable given how little our culture can even acknowledge the value of honorable and confident submission.

danans 6y ago
> But it's understandable given how little our culture can even acknowledge the value of honorable and confident submission. That's because outside of very specific contexts, "honorable and confident submission" doesn't exist. Yes, respectful power differences in otherwise mutually beneficial relationships naturally exist, whether those relationships are platonic, professional, romantic, or very concretely in the context of activities like BDSM. These are, however, characterized by clear limits and boundaries, and a mutual agreement about the benefit of the relationship, including the power difference. But social subjugation is not the same thing. It's about being disempowered in situations where there is no trust relationship that puts boundaries on the exercise of that power against the disempowered. For example, it's a job interview where someone's abilities are cast in doubt because their interviewer perceives their "princess" appearance or mannerisms. That people conflate the two very distinct scenarios is baffling. The difference between them is quite simply a huge gulf of trust.
- FooBarBizBazz 6y ago

FooBarBizBazz 6y ago

It's possible to rotate all this. "Princess" is a great job to have. It's 100% monarchical privilege and zero responsibility. There's nothing disempowering about it. The shiny "baubles" are symbolic gemstones. A little girl drawn to "being a princess" is like a little boy drawn to "being a rich guy" with a monocle and a top-hat. (We have even met the man that little boy grows into: Donald Trump.) Behold I have just set up a totally different complex of associations.