The fascination girls and women have with princesses and queens

Girls gravitate toward princesses because their parents reward them for it. Adults coo over little girls who wear frilly dresses and play at having tea parties and balls. They coo less over little girls who run around and climb trees and play at fighting crime or exploring the bottom of the ocean. Kids tend to repeat what gets them cooed at.

By contrast, when boys show an interest in sparkly clothes or dancing*

Girls may "choose" princesses, but they've been heavily biased toward that choice by the time they are capable of expressing one.

I actually don't think that is the case anymore among little children in the first world anymore, on average. Girls have much more leeway than boys, in terms of gender roles. It's perfectly acceptable (even praiseworthy, if you consider the whole "Girl Power" thing) for a girl to be tomboyish or even better than actual boys at doing "boy things" as opposed to a frilly, airheaded girly girl. I think it's just that some girls simply like to be girly even though they are given the choice.

Boys, on the other hand, are severely pressured and punished if they even THINK of going in a feminine direction. And this is in the First World.

edited 3rd Aug '11 1:58:54 PM by sketch162000

Yes. You could say that girls also get cooed at for being better than boys at the narrow range of things boys are encouraged to do.

Also, there's no dichotomy between being a princess or queen and climbing trees, fighting crime or exploring the bottom of the sea. But between being a princess who has adventures and a commoner who has the same, what's more attractive? The Pimped-Out Dress is a bonus, not a straightjacket.

Girls have more leeway nowadays, but it's still the case that the youngest girls—the ones still discovering how their society works—are rewarded more for being cutesy and frilly than for being active and tough.

Or maybe it's more that they're not punished for being cutesy and frilly the way boys are. Maybe boys would be just as prone to emulating foppish Prince Charming characters if such tendencies weren't harshly shut down.

Don't confuse the literal definition of "princess" with the pop-cultural one. I think we all know what's being talked about here, and it's not Wonder Woman. Or Azula, for that matter.

It may be well worth asking why girls so enjoy tacking "princess" onto the identity of almost anything they pretend, when boys do not do the same with "prince," but I think that goes back to the fact that so many stories already make the interesting female characters alien princesses or fairy princesses or jungle princesses or what-have-you, while male characters can just be aliens, fairies elves, or jungle men.

edited 3rd Aug '11 2:20:58 PM by Karalora

-points at self-

Who the fuck wants to be prince charming?

I did not realize there were two separate definitions of "princess." To me, "princess" has always strictly meant daughter(in-law)of the monarch. Whether she is sitting around in frilly dresses or fighting crime never had anything to do with that definition. Even Disney played with that idea many times over. It just so happens that most of the traditional princesses are portrayed as Distressed Damsels, but that portrayal is not inherent to the definition.

I think it's that, traditionally, females are judged and respected according to what they HAVE, as opposed to what they DO. The Princess is thought of as the model woman because she HAS it all—beauty, fame, influence, wealth, romance, and (the one thing that queens do not have) youth. Whether or not she earned any of that is irrelevant. So "princess" becomes a shorthand for the epitome of feminine, and commoners fall short of that mark because they don't have the title.

On the other hand, males are judged by what they DO, and so are more egalitarian with their heroes. What is important is that the male hero "be a man," that is, behave in a socially proscribed masculine fashion. What he has is irrelevant, so anyone from commoner to king can be the hero as long as he acts the part.

To the point, the balance of doing and having shows up with the villains as well. The female villain often falls short of the female ideal and tries desperately to do something about it—for example, the evil queen in Snow White. Male villains often have a lot, but are often shown as cowards, or too pampered to get their hands dirty.

TL:DR Girls like princesses because they have it all. What "it" is, is impressed upon girls by society. Boys don't really have an equivalent because male role models are primarily supposed to be manly, titles and wealth be damned.

edited 3rd Aug '11 3:42:32 PM by sketch162000

I had a thought earlier, about the movie Enchanted. In the beginning, the male lead gives his little daughter a book about famous and influential women such as Marie Curie. To his daughter - and, what's more, the intended reading of the movie itself - this is proof that he is hopelessly out-of-touch and boring.

It's understandable that a child would feel that way - after all, she probably just sees the superficial aspect of 'pretty clothes!' and doesn't understand much deeper.

But it's telling that the movie itself sees it that way.

The specific context is that he knew she wanted a book of fairytales and got her the one about famous women instead because he thought it was better for her mind. I think they might have been going for the idea that his mistake was ignoring his daughter's wish list, not in his specific choice of gift, but it got mixed up with his portrayal as someone with no patience for fairytale idealism. They could have reduced or eliminated the Unfortunate Implications by having him get her a present that was similar in tone to a fairytale book but still not what she wanted. Alternately, they could have improved the message—and supported the Aesop about finding a happy medium—if the ending sequence had included a scene with Giselle and Morgan reading the famous women book together.

But in any case, it's Disney. Of course they're going to side with the wispy dreamer over the pragmatic person.

edited 3rd Aug '11 8:03:34 PM by Karalora

Besides, every 5-year old boy knows that Knights are much cooler. They get the awesome weapons, the cool armor, and get to slay the dragon and command armies. Someone earlier mentioned that boys ideal of power is being able to do anything with your own abilities, and the knight embodies that ideal, once more, anyone can become a knight. It's pretty much the perfect ideal for a boy!

Sorry for dragging things slightly OT.

Maybe "definition" was the wrong word, but nonetheless I thought it was understood that when we wonder why little girls are so fascinated with "princesses," we aren't including Wonder Woman or Xena or any other character of that sort.

^^

Exactly. That's why I always wanted to be a knight growing up.

I, for one, am quite happy with that particular state of affairs.

Foppish people are fucking obnoxious, and encouraging foppish behavior while children are developing would be a mistake.

So do you think it should be discouraged in girls also?

*

What? I can't fuckin stand them, the more it's stamped out the better; five your kid a sword and shield.

Fops have always been targets of ridicule, mainly because they pretend to be eloquent, witty and fashionable when in reality they're just overdressed, pretentious and downright annoying. That's what a Fop was.

On the other hand, even the classical Dandy or Gentleman of Leisure these days isn't seen as an admirable person either. At least not in much of American pop culture. American audiences tend to relate more to the rough-hewn badass as a hero, and the well-groomed rich guy as a villain.

But the Prince in classical fairy tales tends to be just a blank slate with no personality. He's the object of the heroine's affections and something to acquire, rather than a person. Knights are far cooler, I'd agree.