What's Wrong with Princesses?

Rather than wiping out the princess aisle and replacing it with building blocks one might consider the advantage of being a princess.

First and foremost, princesses are pink and sparkly, and what is better than sparkles? Second, princesses, without doing a thing to earn it, are the center of attention. They have lots of power, being the daughters of the kingdom rulers. They don't have to argue, be mean, or even have intelligent discourse to get what they want. They just tell the palace keepers what they want and their wish is granted. Nobody ever tells a princess to "be nice", smile and get along with their siblings. Princesses are adored no matter what expression they have on their face. Everybody loves a princess.

Now if a princess has a magic wand that adds a whole new dimension. Princesses with wands can close their eyes, make a wish and it automatically happens. Everybody has to put up with the princess because the princess has all the power.

So before you simply tell your kid to quit being a princess, you might deeply consider why she is desperate to be a princess. How many times have you insisted that your daughter behave, be nice and be quiet so that everybody(including you) can be impressed with her good behavior?

Would you do that to a son?

I'm surprised that feminists haven't complained about the concept of a "pink aisle". With all this talk about putting stereotypically boys' toys in a "girls' toys aisle" perhaps people have completely overlooked the fact that having gender-specific aisles is actually sexist.

...is the history of women attempting to excommunicate each other from the High Priestesshood.
- Amy Benfer

I'm just enough of a dinosaur to remember when Barbie was the new disruptive feminist insurgent. Before her, girls toys -- almost all dolls -- focused a lot but not exclusively on the maternal function. The make-believe babies had to be bottle fed, burped, have their diapers changed, and be talked to with baby talk. There was very little if any pink princess-y stuff on the market before about the time the 2nd wave of feminism hit the culture like a tsunami.

Form follows function. Barbie was fundamentally different because she had all the sexual power and privilege of an adult woman, meaning she always got her way, but she was a terminal princess in that she never had any kids. I doubt Goldie Blox will either. I suppose these could be considered "birth control toys" -- for parents who subconciously don't want to be grandparents.

Women get to take a chinese menu approach to sex roles these days, and can alternate on a whim between being proudly egalitarian and coyly traditional. So I don't think their perpetual princess schtick is going to be replaced, just augmented. It's really the 'perpetual' part which is so annoying.

You know what's really funny. 'Progressives' make such a negative and grouchy fuss about girls wanting to be girls. But when homo boys put on pink dresses and play with dolls, the very same progressives say THAT IS SOOOO WONDERFUL and should be encouraged.

So, girls have no right to be girls, but homo boys should be encouraged to act like girls and play with girly things.

So, femininity is just a 'social construct' but homo desire to be girlish is purely natural.

So much for progressive logic.

Females, like males, are diverse. One day a little girl might want to play with princess dolls, the next legos/erector sets, and the day after that try on mommy's five inch heels and strut around. All normal imaginative play.