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.
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.