# Little girls and princesses. A real menace or harmless fun? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [November 27, 2013, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girls-and-princesses-a-real-menace-or-harmless-fun/674950 "2013-11-27T20:31:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2013, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girls-and-princesses-a-real-menace-or-harmless-fun/674950/61 "2013-11-28T19:17:34Z")
Katriona: > [@](#): > > Beauty and the Beast says “stay in an abusive relationship so you can change him.” That’s an…interesting take, to say the least. As I remember it (and that’s very well, because Beauty and the Beast gets played a lot in my house), Belle refused to bow to the Beast’s demands and stayed locked in her room until he changed his manner. That doesn’t sound much like “staying in an abusive relationship” to me. I have five daughters, four of whom are old enough to appreciate movies, and they like Disney princess movies, and there’s not a single one of them that doesn’t do well in school, or that acts overly spoiled, or doesn’t have dreams beyond being rescued and pampered by a man. Their mother is a perfect role model of womanhood for them, and children’s fairy-tale movies can’t change that. It’s up to parents to raise kids, not movies. If the parents are doing less to shape their kids than the movies do, the movies aren’t at fault. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2013, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girls-and-princesses-a-real-menace-or-harmless-fun/674950/62 "2013-11-28T19:19:46Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > I was not full blown into princess stuff as a kid, but I was certainly aware enough to know what distinguished a princess from a regular person. > > Girls glom onto the fantasy not just because they wear sparkly dresses and tiaras, but because it’s cool to imagine themselves as the doted-upon daughter of royalty who enjoys all the trappings of wealth and power. Almost every Disney story–from the Mermaid to Mulan–shows the princess as an extension of the king (not the queen), and I do think girls can and do interpret this as part of the princess mystique. I know I did. And I was aware that a pirate was different from a regular person - and that they stole stuff. Watching Treasure Island taught me that much. I still wore an eyepatch and said “Arrr Matey” for a game. Perhaps a small part of the fantasy there was the fantasy of getting away with crimes - but it was, clearly, a fantasy. There was no expectation we would grow up to become outlaws. Nor do I worry that my kid will do so, if I allow his pirate phase. The reason? I rely on my kid being able, even when very young, to know the difference between fantasy and reality. If he caould not, I’d have a very rough time of it, because just about every fantasy he is into or could possibly be into has ‘negative’ subtexts. In fantasy, a pirate is a hero and his picaresque adventures are fun. In reality, pirates were generally nasty criminals. Similarly, in fantasy, princessess wear great outfits and, in modern cartoons, have amazing adventures. In reality they may well be spoiled aristocrats. I’m willing to bet that the main reason little girls love princesses is the “amazing outfits” and “fantastic adventures”, and a very small part of ot is “getting to be a spoiled aristocrat”. The chances of a kid playing princess deciding _as a result_ to act like a “spoiled aristocrat” when they grow up, I rate as about equal to that of a boy playing pirate deciding to act like a criminal, or a boy playing ninja deciding to act like a murderer. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2013, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girls-and-princesses-a-real-menace-or-harmless-fun/674950/63 "2013-11-28T20:04:18Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Similarly, in fantasy, princessess wear great outfits and, in modern cartoons, have amazing adventures. In reality they may well be spoiled aristocrats. I’m willing to bet that the main reason little girls love princesses is the “amazing outfits” and “fantastic adventures”, and a very small part of ot is “getting to be a spoiled aristocrat”. The chances of a kid playing princess deciding _as a result_ to act like a “spoiled aristocrat” when they grow up, I rate as about equal to that of a boy playing pirate deciding **to act like a criminal, or a boy playing ninja deciding to act like a murderer**. Well, to the part in bold, I do think the competitiveness and aggression that many men exhibit might have something to do with the fantasies they are encouraged to buy into as kids. Certainly a boy raised by parents who buy him toy guns and solder figurines could turn out the exact same way as a boy raised by parents who eschewed toy guns in favor of telescopes and dinosaurs. Just like a girl encouraged to be into princesses could turn out just as accomplished as a girl encouraged to be into sports or superheros. But I’m not talking about individuals, but rather groups. Boys raised en masse to romanticize violence are unlikely to be identitical to boys who are raised en masse to romanticize other things, and the same applies to girls and their fantasies. So you drawing parallels to the princess thing isn’t countering my viewpoint at all. My opinion is that none of this stuff as superficial as we conventionally think it is. We’re essentially talking about how sociocultural values get implicitly passed down from parents to children. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2013, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girls-and-princesses-a-real-menace-or-harmless-fun/674950/64 "2013-11-28T20:34:57Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > I was not full blown into princess stuff as a kid, but I was certainly aware enough to know what distinguished a princess from a regular person. > > Girls glom onto the fantasy not just because they wear sparkly dresses and tiaras, but because it’s cool to imagine themselves as the doted-upon daughter of royalty who enjoys all the trappings of wealth and power. Almost every Disney story–from the Mermaid to Mulan–shows the princess as an extension of the king (not the queen), and I do think girls can and do interpret this as part of the princess mystique. I know I did. _Mulan_? Isn’t that the movie where the non-royal heroine turns down an offer from the emperor to take care of her elderly father, and ends up marrying the son of the general? Not really seeing how she’s an “extension” of the king. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2013, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girls-and-princesses-a-real-menace-or-harmless-fun/674950/65 "2013-11-28T20:50:59Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > _Mulan_? Isn’t that the movie where the non-royal heroine turns down an offer from the emperor to take care of her elderly father, and ends up marrying the son of the general? Not really seeing how she’s an “extension” of the king. Good point. I think Mulan came to mind in that context because of her relationship to her father. Another princess would have been a better example, though. ---
**Author:** ![Penfeather](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/penfeather/32/384_2.png) [@Penfeather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Penfeather)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2013, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girls-and-princesses-a-real-menace-or-harmless-fun/674950/66 "2013-11-28T20:51:17Z")
> [@ZPG\_Zealot](#): > > When my nieces went through the princess phase I used it as learning opportunity and taught them about the lives of real princesses which meant a lot of hard work and sacrifice. We even developed a saying we still use to encourage each other: “Be a princess” It’s based on the example of Elizabeth I of England. It means hold your head high and persist on no matter what someone else accuses you of and what obstacles they put in your path. Keep Calm And Behead Traitors ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2013, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girls-and-princesses-a-real-menace-or-harmless-fun/674950/67 "2013-11-28T20:57:51Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Well, to the part in bold, I do think the competitiveness and aggression that many men exhibit might have something to do with the fantasies they are encouraged to buy into as kids. Certainly a boy raised by parents who buy him toy guns and solder figurines could turn out the exact same way as a boy raised by parents who eschewed toy guns in favor of telescopes and dinosaurs. Just like a girl encouraged to be into princesses could turn out just as accomplished as a girl encouraged to be into sports or superheros. But I’m not talking about individuals, but rather groups. Boys raised en masse to romanticize violence are unlikely to be identitical to boys who are raised en masse to romanticize other things, and the same applies to girls and their fantasies. > > So you drawing parallels to the princess thing isn’t countering my viewpoint at all. My opinion is that none of this stuff as superficial as we conventionally think it is. We’re essentially talking about how sociocultural values get implicitly passed down from parents to children. The trick here is that, increasingly, there is little serious difference between the adventures of various categories of fantasy characters. Or indeed, any prohibition on princesses to be equipped with toy swords or guns, and indulging in “romaticized” violence (see: Mulan, an example you gave, in which it is the princess who defeats a Hunnish invasion!). Can we look forward to a horde of Mulan-inspired girls raised on violent solutions to problems? 😉 And no, I am not particularly concerned about the inherent violence of either boys or girls fantasizing about pirates and ninjas, or even soldiers (as in Mulan). Kids very quickly learn the difference between fantasy (in which violence can be fun) and reality (in which it is not). To my mind, keeping kids ignorant of potentially-violent stories would seriously impoverish them, and cut them off from the great mass of human culture and history. I am not persuaded that any great advantages corresponding to this deprivation would ensue from such self-censorship. ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2013, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girls-and-princesses-a-real-menace-or-harmless-fun/674950/68 "2013-11-28T21:28:26Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > The trick here is that, increasingly, there is little serious difference between the adventures of various categories of fantasy characters. Or indeed, any prohibition on princesses to be equipped with toy swords or guns, and indulging in “romaticized” violence (see: Mulan, an example you gave, in which it is the princess who defeats a Hunnish invasion!). Can we look forward to a horde of Mulan-inspired girls raised on violent solutions to problems? 😉 > > And no, I am not particularly concerned about the inherent violence of either boys or girls fantasizing about pirates and ninjas, or even soldiers (as in Mulan). Kids very quickly learn the difference between fantasy (in which violence can be fun) and reality (in which it is not). To my mind, keeping kids ignorant of potentially-violent stories would seriously impoverish them, and cut them off from the great mass of human culture and history. I am not persuaded that any great advantages corresponding to this deprivation would ensue from such self-censorship. I don’t think anyone here is calling for depriving kids of stories, or even limiting their access or restricting their play. It’s more a general idea that parents should be aware of these issues and foster a sort of critical awareness of where these ideals are problematic. It’s not about taking books OUT of the library basket, but rather about making sure that other books are also put in–books that have contrasting images of womanhood. And the word “princess” is really muddying the waters here, of course, because some of the best models of womanhood are at least nominal princesses, and some of the most “princessy” are not technically princessess at all (fairies, for example, as often depicted). And it’s really not about reality vs. fantasy. It’s not whether or not girls think they can _really_ grow up to be beautiful ornaments adored by all that see them simply because of the grace and beauty that are the inevitable manifestations of their superior bloodlines. The problem is having that daydream in the first place, as if that would be a more satisfying life than one where you had actual agency. Again, not all princess fantasies involve being a beautiful, passive ornament. But it behooves a parent to make sure that a child has an opportunity to explore some of the problems with the one particular aspect of the princess daydream, and not simply internalize it unquestioned. ---
**Author:** ![Ulfreida](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ulfreida/32/8014_2.png) [@Ulfreida](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ulfreida)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2013, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girls-and-princesses-a-real-menace-or-harmless-fun/674950/69 "2013-11-28T22:12:42Z")
Nothing super apropos to add to the discussion, except that back in the Pleistocene when I was a child, one of the games we played was called King And Queen. One person got to be royalty and everyone else was his or her slave.The king or queen was made a royal throne, a sceptre, delicate favorite dishes, and was entertained by dancers and musicians. Odd thing was, being the royalty sounded so tempting everybody wanted to be that person but within twenty minutes it was boring and you wanted to be a slave, who got to make stuff and dance. That’s when we traded roles. My own daughter never wanted to be a princess, but she spent a lot of time as a wood nymph, clothed in leaves. We don’t live in town. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2013, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girls-and-princesses-a-real-menace-or-harmless-fun/674950/70 "2013-11-28T22:51:29Z")
> [@MandaJo](#): > > I don’t think anyone here is calling for depriving kids of stories, or even limiting their access or restricting their play. It’s more a general idea that parents should be aware of these issues and foster a sort of critical awareness of where these ideals are problematic. It’s not about taking books OUT of the library basket, but rather about making sure that other books are also put in–books that have contrasting images of womanhood. And the word “princess” is really muddying the waters here, of course, because some of the best models of womanhood are at least nominal princesses, and some of the most “princessy” are not technically princessess at all (fairies, for example, as often depicted). > > And it’s really not about reality vs. fantasy. It’s not whether or not girls think they can _really_ grow up to be beautiful ornaments adored by all that see them simply because of the grace and beauty that are the inevitable manifestations of their superior bloodlines. The problem is having that daydream in the first place, as if that would be a more satisfying life than one where you had actual agency. > > Again, not all princess fantasies involve being a beautiful, passive ornament. But it behooves a parent to make sure that a child has an opportunity to explore some of the problems with the one particular aspect of the princess daydream, and not simply internalize it unquestioned. Strikes me that this is likely to be an age-conflict thing. Like the earnest parent in one of the links in the OP, who bought his daughter a book chock-full of uplifting and inspiring heroines, only to find she was bored shitless by them - but loved the crappy dime-sale fairytale princess books utterly lacking in socially redeeming features. Sure, there is nothing wrong in principle with parents adding “critical awareness”, but much like most earnest parental moralizing, it is likely to result in glazed eyes. I remain unconcerned. Girls have tons of ways to discover they have “actual agency”, and I seriously doubt that a five year old going through a princess phase is likely to impact on their future sense of selfhood one way or another - or that they are likely to be improved much in this sense by well-meaning parental lecturing. Best way to ensure the kids have lots of diverse interests: have lots of interests youself. Kids learn by example. Have piles of exciting books around. The kid will grow out of their obsessive phases soon enough. ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2013, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girls-and-princesses-a-real-menace-or-harmless-fun/674950/71 "2013-11-28T23:27:16Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Strikes me that this is likely to be an age-conflict thing. Like the earnest parent in one of the links in the OP, who bought his daughter a book chock-full of uplifting and inspiring heroines, only to find she was bored shitless by them - but loved the crappy dime-sale fairytale princess books utterly lacking in socially redeeming features. > > Sure, there is nothing wrong in principle with parents adding “critical awareness”, but much like most earnest parental moralizing, it is likely to result in glazed eyes. > > I remain unconcerned. Girls have tons of ways to discover they have “actual agency”, and I seriously doubt that a five year old going through a princess phase is likely to impact on their future sense of selfhood one way or another - or that they are likely to be improved much in this sense by well-meaning parental lecturing. Best way to ensure the kids have lots of diverse interests: have lots of interests youself. Kids learn by example. Have piles of exciting books around. The kid will grow out of their obsessive phases soon enough. My mom was far from earnest–with six kids, she was more harried–and I don’t remember long lectures, but I know I benefited tremendously from the fact that she’d mention it whenever expectations for women were set low, or were limiting in some way. I also know I benefited tremendously from the fact that she made sure that we had all sorts of models for adulthood: tons of dress up clothes (well, thrift store rags and random cloth yardage) and stuffed animals, yes, but also blocks and Legos. I know I benefited from her handing me “boy” books as well as “girl” books, and reading both herself so that she could discuss them with me. I have peers who were raised with much more rigid gender expectations than I was, and in some cases I really think it has limited them, especially economically. I am profoundly grateful that my parents maintained an awareness of gender messages and helped me navigate what is a rather complicated aspect of our society. I don’t think it’s something a parent ought to just ignore and assume the kid will figure it out on their own. ---
**Author:** ![dzeiger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/46a35a/32.png) [@dzeiger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dzeiger)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2013, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girls-and-princesses-a-real-menace-or-harmless-fun/674950/72 "2013-11-29T05:00:57Z")
> [@Katriona](#): > > But even some of the “modern” Disney versions give some pretty bad messages–The Little Mermaid says “change everything about yourself for a guy” and Beauty and the Beast says “stay in an abusive relationship so you can change him.” Princesses as an abstract concept I have no problems with, but some of the specifics have an ugly side. But as I pointed out, The Little Mermaid is almost 25 years old at this point. It’s hardly surprising that some values aren’t up to modern snuff. But it’s a progression–Ariel, Belle, etc were more active than Aurora or Cinderella, Rapunzel was more involved yet (haven’t looked too much at the ones from the new Frozen film) ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2013, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girls-and-princesses-a-real-menace-or-harmless-fun/674950/73 "2013-11-29T07:00:41Z")
> [@Unauthorized\_Cinnamon](#): > > Personally, I think the issue is that toys and entertainment have become increasingly gender-segregated, and reinforce outdated stereotypes, especially for girls. > > The perfect example is Lego. There are plain Lego sets - the default. And now there are special Lego sets for girls, which are pink and purple and have beauty parlors and veterinarian offices instead of police stations and awesome Star Wars vehicles. It’s a good example of “men are people, and women are women.” I think you’ve got that exactly backwards. Girls can definitely play with any Lego set they want, including an “awesome” Star Wars vehicle. Boys, on the other hand, definitely can’t wear pink, play with beauty parlors, or be princesses. When it was pink day at my daughter’s preschool, the boys were out of luck. The is no such thing as pink boys clothes for preschoolers, apparently. I’m not complaining, mind you, just pointing out that you’re 100% wrong. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2013, 9:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girls-and-princesses-a-real-menace-or-harmless-fun/674950/74 "2013-11-29T09:17:26Z")
> [@MandaJo](#): > > I think this is dodging the issue, though. I mean, the question is “Does the ‘princess’ ideal potentially encourage negative personality traits?” and the answer “No, not for us because we’ve totally redefined it” seems to be avoiding the issue. It’s not dodging the issue - the full answer is “We redefined it and so should you in some way or other” See my bit about “lazy parenting” - parents _need_ to talk to their kids about their media intake, even if they don’t control it absolutely. I know I talk to mine. The princess ideal doesn’t arrive in your kid’s head fully-formed, without inputs. “Does the ideal potentially encourage negative personality traits?” Sure, I guess, but only if you couple it with lazy parenting. > [@](#): > > There does exist a convention out there of a princess as someone who is celebrated and distinguished by her femininity: her youthful beauty, her delicacy, her adornment, her helplessness, her very lack of utility. This isn’t a “princess” thing, it’s a bad feminine rolemodel thing - look at other sources, the Kardashians, the Paris Hiltons - it’s not helpful to single out princesses for this. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2013, 9:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girls-and-princesses-a-real-menace-or-harmless-fun/674950/75 "2013-11-29T09:22:03Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > I think you’ve got that exactly backwards. Girls can definitely play with any Lego set they want, including an “awesome” Star Wars vehicle. Boys, on the other hand, definitely can’t wear pink, play with beauty parlors, or be princesses. Of course they can - if we let them. > [@](#): > > When it was pink day at my daughter’s preschool, the boys were out of luck. The is no such thing as pink boys clothes for preschoolers, apparently. What makes something “Boy’s clothes”, in your mind? Why not dress the boys in pink clothes? It’s not like all the pink stuff is dresses (not that there’s anything wrong with a boy in a dress) ---
**Author:** ![the\_diego](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7bcc69/32.png) [@the\_diego](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_diego)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2013, 9:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girls-and-princesses-a-real-menace-or-harmless-fun/674950/76 "2013-11-29T09:58:45Z")
If I even imply that I’ll stop buying my daughter Princess Barbie dolls, she’ll whack me in the head with one of them. ---
**Author:** ![Filbert](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/filbert/32/3433_2.png) [@Filbert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Filbert)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2013, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girls-and-princesses-a-real-menace-or-harmless-fun/674950/77 "2013-11-29T11:59:01Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Women are taught from a young age that their value is only as high as the status of the men in their lives. The “princess” concept is the embodiment of that message. A princess is only a noteworthy person because she is either married to a high status man or is the child of a high status man. That’s… not entirely true- I’m no fan of the ‘princess’ concept (in reality or fantasy), but the princess title can also be inherited from a mother, as well as a father. Look at the current UK royals, for a pretty obvious example. In my experience people tend to encourage girls in the ‘princess’ thing a lot more than they encourage their sons to pretend to be pirates or ninjas. “Being a princess” is often not treated quite as much like the fantasy it is as other kinds of make-believe. I’ve never heard of someone who carried on calling their son a pirate into their teens… ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2013, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girls-and-princesses-a-real-menace-or-harmless-fun/674950/78 "2013-11-29T13:43:11Z")
No one redefined what princess means. In the context of girls wanting to be princesses, it has always meant what it means now. Remember, Disney started retelling old fairy tales. It’s not something new. And I also point out that this thread started with calls to ban the princess concept because it is so evil. The question was not whether there was any downsides to the princess concept, but whether it is “REALLY that bad.” As in, do we have any proof that the princess concept is hurting anyone? I mean, I can come up with reasons why absolutely anything might be bad for children. We need data, not reasoning here. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2013, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girls-and-princesses-a-real-menace-or-harmless-fun/674950/79 "2013-11-29T14:25:11Z")
> [@SerafinaPekala](#): > > Dangerosa, thats an admirable job. Raising kids and running a house where the partner is often absent is no picnic Im sure. But unlike the patent lawyer and the secretary jobs, there isnt any independence or equity if you leave the job/are laid off (God forbid), is there? I think thats what women have fought for and why I reject the Trophy Wife/Princess thing. Not that it hurt Ivana. In my case, a ton of independence and equity, I worked for twenty years before I took on my “trophy wife” role, and during that time we saved quite a bit of money. My current responsibilities include raising kids, homeschooling, keeping house, and managing the finances, including the stock portfolio. Should my marriage end in death or divorce, I have an accounting degree, twenty years of experience in IT, a PMP, ITIL certification and a Six Sigma Blackbelt. And in most marriages if you get “laid off” there is equity when you divide up the assets. Moreover, there isn’t much equity if you start a small business and it fails, either - that situation isn’t unique to women who stay home. And that is the case with a lot of real life princesses - trophy wives are often very educated women - whether you are talking about Princess Masako or my cousin who is a stay at home mom married to a cardiologist - who also holds a masters in nursing and keeps up her CNP license just in case or my husband’s boss’s wife, who is married to a CTO of a multi billion dollar company, stays home because he job hops a lot and she follows him, but does have an MBA and a JD to fall back on. I can guess why this is true - one thing is that women who are trophy wives often didn’t set out with that career aspiration. It just became the case that two high end careers and a family weren’t compatible - something had to give and often (not always) the wife steps back into a traditional role. The women I’ve worked with at the VP and CXO level often have husbands who either stay home or have less demanding jobs (I know a bunch of female VPs married to teachers). When there are two people in high end careers, there are seldom children at home. But if you are a little girl dreaming of becoming a trophy wife because its probably the most likely way to become a real life “princess”- competition is pretty fierce and you are most likely to meet your future spouse in grad school or on the job. You have to work on something other than walking in heels and applying seductive eyeliner to set yourself apart. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2013, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girls-and-princesses-a-real-menace-or-harmless-fun/674950/80 "2013-11-29T14:37:41Z")
> [@MandaJo](#): > > My mom was far from earnest–with six kids, she was more harried–and I don’t remember long lectures, but I know I benefited tremendously from the fact that she’d mention it whenever expectations for women were set low, or were limiting in some way. I also know I benefited tremendously from the fact that she made sure that we had all sorts of models for adulthood: tons of dress up clothes (well, thrift store rags and random cloth yardage) and stuffed animals, yes, but also blocks and Legos. I know I benefited from her handing me “boy” books as well as “girl” books, and reading both herself so that she could discuss them with me. > > I have peers who were raised with much more rigid gender expectations than I was, and in some cases I really think it has limited them, especially economically. I am profoundly grateful that my parents maintained an awareness of gender messages and helped me navigate what is a rather complicated aspect of our society. I don’t think it’s something a parent ought to just ignore and assume the kid will figure it out on their own. The issue isn’t having lots of books around, and in a general way raising awareness - we both say that’s a good idea - it is what to do when your kid gets “into” say, the princess thing, and herself picks out that stuff, preferring it to other stuff. What exactly would you do about it, if anything? Kids can be awfully stubborn about what they like. My suggestion: it isn’t a big deal, kids go through phases. I don’t believe that lecturing them on gender roles because they want to play princess dress-up when they are six is going to make much of a difference. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girls-and-princesses-a-real-menace-or-harmless-fun/674950.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girls-and-princesses-a-real-menace-or-harmless-fun/674950.md?page=5)