This doesn't mean I can't _encourage_ things; if my daughter displays an interest in dinosaurs, I will be sure to gently fan the spark. If the spark goes out, no big deal. There will be more interests, and my job is to make sure I'm encouraging an exposure to a wide range of them.
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.
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.
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.
That's what primates do. See Chimp "Girls" Play With "Dolls" Too—First Wild Evidence, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/12/101220-chimp...
(To read article while skipping demand for email address, turn off JavaScript.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I would abandon the vocabulary of "domination" and "submission". And I disagree with the association with BDSM, because it is full of coercive symbolism: whips, striking, restraints.
A much better pair of words, in my opinion, is "to lead" and "to follow". The connotations are better.
Leading is understood to take effort, to be a service to the community, even the community of two. The follower chooses to follow, not because they are compelled by force, but because the leader knows the path. The leader is not giving directions merely to extract pleasure for themselves, but as a service; they are organizing the community for its mutual benefit.
Then, when you follow, it is not because you are being whipped, or choked, or physically restrained, but because you want to go where the leader is directing; they don't have to make you do anything. You are happy to let them make the decisions, because you trust their decisions to be good for you -- and they are.
And when you lead, you do not need to worry about maintaining coercive power, because you know that you can trust your followers to work together with you. Their eyes (and yours) are on your shared objective, not on who gets to be in charge.
I think the key difference between these two dichotomies is this: One is held together by coercion, and the focus is on who is in charge; the other is held together by trust, and yes, someone naturally takes charge, but this is for the purpose of achieving a shared objective, which is where the focus is.
I am saying that legitimate consensual authority exists, and that our society should allow it to exist, rather than tearing it down always by viewing it as violent. It does not need to be violent, or attached to violent symbolism. Instead of "master and slave", think "mother and daughter" or "father and son". Both sides of these relations have obligations, and both have dignity.
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.
"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.
My oldest loves programming, my middle child couldn't care less. They've been exposed similarly.
I think it's more nature than nurture personally.
My older kid explicitly declined to pick up a hobby that she seemed to be interested in because, “oh, that’s $YOUNGERSIB’s thing.”
Molding them to follow your passions may seem to work initially - kids naturally want to please their parents - and it certainly could happen to align with their personal excellence, but it can also ultimately rob them from developing their own unique talents.
His kid didn't like cycling, he likes wakeboarding. My colleague absolutely hated it, said it wasn't really a sport, said you didn't have the suffering that you have riding a bicycle.
After some weekend on one of his rides (alone), he came across a father and a son. The son was all into cycling, took his dad everywhere. The dad didn't really like cycling, but his son was so passionate that he was willing to ride long distances with his son.
My colleague noted "I wish I had such a son", but in my mind, I thought "Your son probably wishes he had such a dad".
You will have to decide what kind of father you want to be, the one where your kid follows your passion, or where you follow your kids passion. The first option will not result in a close relationship.
And as a father of 4 myself, it seems most kids don't really have an extreme passion. And if they do, it shifts quickly. Plus, when you talk about your passion all the time, they will soon be pretty bored by it, don't want to hear about it anymore.
Just enjoy the time you spend with your kids, do fun stuff that you both like. You can always discuss dinosaur stuff with people who are as passionate as you.
When my kid was 5, mom arranged for a couple of days of family vacation at a dig run by a museum just on the Colorado side of the Utah border, in dino country. You could pay a few dollars for a day of digging, where you paid them to move their dirt. :) Great fun for the kids. The 2 days we participated there was a herd of 5-6 year old kids, and associated parents, digging under the supervision of a quarry master. Said QM being a paleontology graduate student (one of those kids that never outgrew dinosaurs).
One of my most memorable moments as a parent: during lunch break as we were all munching on bologna sandwiches, chips, and orange drink that were part of the package, the quarry master was surrounded by an adoring crowd of kids. One boy about 6 years old looks at him very seriously and says "I want to be a paleontologist when I grow up." -- the QM looked at him and said with full sincerity and seriousness: "Yeah. Me, too." The kid, of course, took that at face value and drank in the kinship. For us parents, the moment was an "Oh yeah, I feel your graduate student life. Half-done thesis, summer jobs at museums and a diet of ramen noodles. Keep the faith, buddy." I sure hope that guy is a tenured professor somewhere by now.
That doesn’t dispose of the question of my judgement - there’s some violence in that film so that’s not a universal recommendation.
Parenting is a total mystery.
EDIT: Just to say - kids go absolutely bananas for any of the scenes in either Jurassic World movie that feature a Mosasaurus.
One thing I found to be true for me personally (not trying to imply universal truth here), is that so many instincts just take over.
Was never one to think I'd be ready for kids (who is?), but here we are and my partner and I are somehow managing. It's exhausting, but I love it so far. There is nothing quite like joining the imaginary world of a young child in their endless creativity.
We have 3 year old twins, and the boy is still fearless but the girl is not.
That or firefighters.
Or sharks.
Or race car drivers.
While nature has its role, and both of our kids are skilled in math, and comfortable with the geek nature of puzzling over that which is unknown and becoming skilled at it, neither of them are into programming computers, despite both their parents having the background.
Instead, one's a visual artist. The other's a theater geek.
I opened the door to introducing them to programming, but with a light touch, as I knew a hard sell would make them hate it. They weren't interested, though I think one is starting to dabble with MineCraft mods. Fortunately, I half expected it, and they're good at what they like to do, so that will hopefully be a source of contentment for them in the future.
Either, you are engaging the kid's own personal interest in the thing, which has the potential to grow independently of you as a parent,
or, you can demonstrate your personal interest, at a stage while they are particularly fascinated with you - this, they will grow out of.
László Polgár has encountered lots of controversy about his view of child-rearing. My understanding is that his daughters have tended to express support for their childhood experiences.
They’re not allowed violent content of any kind. No horror, no blood, no gore.
But they’re allowed to watch these prehistoric monsters devour others from limb to limb. It’s actually ultra violent but the kids can watch it because it’s real, therefore natural, therefore science.
This is the same reason kids love big cats, sharks and other predators.
Anyway, if you want your future kids to like dinosaurs, just don’t let them watch other forms of violence. (Again, just a theory)
There's something inherently fascinating about enormous creatures that used to walk the earth. Kids IME don't need much encouragement.
In my experience it's unusual for kids not to be interested in either dinosaurs or fire engines at some point.
I once asked a fire department rep at an open house whether he liked fire engines as a kid. Turns out he loved them--no surprise--and really enjoyed paying it forward with new generations of kids.
However, “liking” dinosaurs is pretty likely to happen, if only for a time period in their life. All of my kids “like” dinosaurs, but one likes them far more than others.
For a time, we lived close enough to the Field Museum in Chicago to be able to ride bikes there. We got a membership and visited 50-100 times per year (seriously). They have a world-famous dinosaur collection, but it’s located inside a much larger exhibit that takes you through earth’s history and places the dinosaurs in their proper time period (if I’m remembering correctly it’s between the 3rd and 4th mass extinction event). There is so much information and it’s so well presented that you can’t help but enjoy it and learn from it. My kids have never seen Jurassic Park or any other pop culture dinosaur movies, and they didn’t need to.
What you can do is create an environment that encourages learning. Take an interest in them, and their interests, even if it's not the same as yours to begin with. Ask lots of questions! Then they will start asking you, too.
If there's one universal truth to parenting, it's that kids don't really do what you say, but what you do.
If you keep musical instruments around and play a little regularly when they are around, sooner or later they will try themselves. If there are books of dinosaurs around, and the parents take an interest in dinosaurs, sooner or later they will be curious to find out what's so fun about them.
For the most part, I just try to build a loving environment where she can feel secure to enjoy the things that she is into. I encourage her to be exactly who she wants to be. Luckily, I'm privileged enough to be able to fill her environment with interesting, somewhat age appropriate things.
Incidentally, here is one of the things that she is really into right now. I don't understand it, but she loves it enough to draw it fairly often. To this day, she refers to _ph_ as a 'really cool dude'. Armagon is another 'really cool dude' as well. I'm still not but I sure love that _ph_ and armagon are!!! :)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22993864
Once again, I love you Hacker News.
Edit - I'll find and link to an ask HN that I asked while she was having one of the biggest, most awful tantrums of her life. She wanted to see the ISS and was the angriest she has ever been when I couldn't remember the link.
"Me no yike you," screamed out at the top of her lungs while we were grocery shopping.....joy! :)
Here it is:
Then sharks
Then tigers
Then marsupials
Then all of Australia
Dump trucks and trains.
Space ships and astronauts are a given.
If they like it is up to them. You can't push it. If they aren't interested at some point in time, they may be latter.
https://kids.scholastic.com/kids/book/titanosaur-by-jose-lui...
Personally, when I was a teen, the first 3 Jurassic Park films whirled my brain and had nice vivid dreams about the island and dinos.
However, with the main hobby, at age of 8, peer pressure does a lot. And so does wish to be individuality. So your kid will like dinosaurs and debates about them with you, but to can't make it super obsessed or something. You can't make kid into copy of you and it would be harmful anyway.
(ours is 28. he still likes dinosaurs. we didn't forbid this, its endogenous in some genotypes apparently)
But for me, the biggest realisation was not rushing or expecting things at an age.
Do you honestly think talking dinosaurs with your same kid as a teenager or adult will be less fun? It will be different sure, but no less great.
But then again, sometimes kids reject the stuff you into, just because. They’re excellent trolls that way. :-D
Just as fun is to like and play with what they like.
Problem solved :D