American Princess

[mankytoes]

7 hours ago, Pony Empress Jace said:

Bah! Why you gotta go and make sense and whatnot!

Really I made the thread on a whim after seeing an article headlined 'Why Megan Markel will still have to curtsey to Kate Middleton'. That's the shit that really gets me. I don't want to say something overwrought and stupid like "I bow to no man." but I swear to fucking Darwin that I'd kick a bitch in the throat before I fucking curtsied to some inbreed loving halfwit who likes being a porcelain doll.

The bowing thing in Japan and China or whatever, that's one thing 'cause it's like a mutual respect situation in my understanding. But dipping your knee to make someone else feel powerful in their impotence? No fucking way, it's sick and degrading.

I don't want to sound humourless, I know you're kinda joking here, but you do know we don't actually have to bow, right? I mean Meghan (as a Sussexian, I must insist you spell the name of my duchess correctly) may have to, but she specifically bought in. It's not like we have to bow to the Queen's image the way some, say, are forced (or at least socially pressured) into saluting a flag constantly...

Well they have mutual bowing as an alternative to handshaking (or maybe hugging if you're an overly tactile yank), but it's traditionally more of a submission thing, like kowtowing to the emperor, or even your parents at a wedding day. 

[Yukle]

20 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

I don't want to sound humourless, I know you're kinda joking here, but you do know we don't actually have to bow, right? I mean Meghan (as a Sussexian, I must insist you spell the name of my duchess correctly) may have to, but she specifically bought in. It's not like we have to bow to the Queen's image the way some, say, are forced (or at least socially pressured) into saluting a flag constantly...

Well they have mutual bowing as an alternative to handshaking (or maybe hugging if you're an overly tactile yank), but it's traditionally more of a submission thing, like kowtowing to the emperor, or even your parents at a wedding day. 

Now you mention it, isn't it forbidden to touch a royal without their explicit permission? Well, not forbidden, but a social taboo? I remember some sort of kerfuffle because our PM once touched the Princess Royal's back.

And I dunno what the UK is like, but if you treat our Queen the same way that we do, then I spend lots of time rolling my eyes because the boys in my class fold the 5 dollarydoo note so that it looks like this crass image.

[mankytoes]

9 minutes ago, Yukle said:

Now you mention it, isn't it forbidden to touch a royal without their explicit permission? Well, not forbidden, but a social taboo? I remember some sort of kerfuffle because our PM once touched the Princess Royal's back.

And I dunno what the UK is like, but if you treat our Queen the same way that we do, then I spend lots of time rolling my eyes because the boys in my class fold the 5 dollarydoo note so that it looks like this crass image.

Um, there's all sorts of protocol, but I don't think many people actually know it. I think a lot of that only applies to the queen herself? There are more people now saying you shouldn't touch anyone without consent, so maybe that will be less of an issue. I missed my chance to shake Lizzy's hand because I was on holiday  

Nice, I've never seen that before. I'm not aware of any currency tricks like that, but I think generally as soon as you make someone somehow "sacred" there will always be a lot of humour about breaking that taboo. It's a great subject for comedy, because everyone knows the whole idea is inherently ridiculous. Once society rejects the idea that these people are actually chosen by God, it's just a bit silly. 

The reason I mentioned all the socially progressive monarchies before is that my main problem with monarchy is the effect on national consciousness. All American kids are told "you can be President", no matter how bad inequality and opportunity is there, that's factually true. But we can't be head of state. How can you even claim to aspire to equality of opportunity when you have people living in castles? It doesn't help that most royals struggle to even achieve average academic marks, even with very expensive education. 

But then, you look at the most powerful countries in the world, all have overthrown monarchies- USA, Russia, China- and I think very few Brits would aspire for our country to be more like any of those countries. There doesn't seem to be much real evidence that monarchy is harmful.

[Yukle]

4 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

Nice, I've never seen that before. I'm not aware of any currency tricks like that, but I think generally as soon as you make someone somehow "sacred" there will always be a lot of humour about breaking that taboo. It's a great subject for comedy, because everyone knows the whole idea is inherently ridiculous. Once society rejects the idea that these people are actually chosen by God, it's just a bit silly. 

The reason I mentioned all the socially progressive monarchies before is that my main problem with monarchy is the effect on national consciousness. All American kids are told "you can be President", no matter how bad inequality and opportunity is there, that's factually true. But we can't be head of state. How can you even claim to aspire to equality of opportunity when you have people living in castles? It doesn't help that most royals struggle to even achieve average academic marks, even with very expensive education. 

But then, you look at the most powerful countries in the world, all have overthrown monarchies- USA, Russia, China- and I think very few Brits would aspire for our country to be more like any of those countries. There doesn't seem to be much real evidence that monarchy is harmful.

I have heard Stephen Fry talk about the Queen a few times on QI. He gives the impression that she has a fairly robust sense of humour.  And doesn't take herself too seriously behind closed doors.

For what it's worth, the longest serving Queen in the empire's history has overseen massive decolonisation.

And yeah, I agree. I'm not at all hoping we become like USA, Russia or China either. I think the monarchy is a harmless anachronism. It doesn't make any difference having or not having it, really.

Besides, without sharing a Queen, how can us Aussies keep smashing the Poms in the Commonwealth Games every four years?!  

[mankytoes]

6 minutes ago, Yukle said:

I have heard Stephen Fry talk about the Queen a few times on QI. He gives the impression that she has a fairly robust sense of humour.  And doesn't take herself too seriously behind closed doors.

For what it's worth, the longest serving Queen in the empire's history has overseen massive decolonisation.

And yeah, I agree. I'm not at all hoping we become like USA, Russia or China either. I think the monarchy is a harmless anachronism. It doesn't make any difference having or not having it, really.

Besides, without sharing a Queen, how can us Aussies keep smashing the Poms in the Commonwealth Games every four years?!  

Yeah, she comes across as very no bullshit, which people like a lot. I remember a line in Ice and Fire where someone says the Gods were kind to make Doran, not Oberyn, born first, and thus prince of Dorne. I think when people look at the other royals, they feel similarly lucky about the whims of birth and law that made her queen. Sadly, the same can't be said of her first born...

True, I'm not sure she can really be credited for that, but she's always done well to remain politically neutral, considering a single remark could be considered a constitutional crisis. 

Honestly, I'm a bit surprised Australia is still in the club. Do you see it lasting another, say, fifty years?

We do still let the old rebels like the Indians play in that. But it's not the same. And I promise to stop taunting Aussies with "God save your queen". 

 

[Errant Bard]

6 hours ago, Yukle said:

Power can be wielded by many someones, not just someone. Monarchies in general, I don't like, it's more that the Commonwealth nations, for all intents and purposes, aren't monarchies in practice.

There are many problems with America's presidency. For one thing, Trump was elected by the EC, not his populace. And now that he is in power, he has extra privileges that normal citizens don't get. Including immunity from many laws. Impeachment is meant to be the means around him being criminal, unsuitable or corrupt. Trump is all three and there's nothing Americans can do about it.

Our PMs aren't immune to prosecution for their actions. And unlike the USA, ours are required to disclose all conflicts of interest by law, not by convention. Trump could never have been PM of Australia as his refusal to disclose his business interests would make him ineligible for office.

Prime Ministers don't have as much executive power as Presidents to start with, since power is also devolved into parliament.

I'm not entirely convinced. The US president seems to have a lot of power and even more since Obama added some way to use more decrees (iirc), but there are still check and balances and the congress, senate, supreme court, judiciary system and the states/cities have a lot of independent power themselves that they can use to truly block the president if they want to, same as a parliament/party in other system... If I consider political history, I don't really see the US president more free to do whatever he wants than, say, Tatcher.

[LongRider]

I thought from the title this thread would be about Ivanka Trump.   guess not.

[Yukle]

12 hours ago, mankytoes said:

Honestly, I'm a bit surprised Australia is still in the club. Do you see it lasting another, say, fifty years?

See, Australians are really lazy. Change requires thinking and who can be stuffed doing that?

Give us a 50 year timeframe and we'll still take 80, minimum. There's a good chance we'll retain the monarchy longer than the UK.

[Iskaral Pust]

As much as I disdain monarchic institutions, the greatest evil in this situation is the pervasive princess fantasy. Even SJW feminists want to believe there’s a wealthy, woke prince ready to make her the object of slavish affection and devotion of an entire nation.  

[Errant Bard]

2 hours ago, Iskaral Pust said:

As much as I disdain monarchic institutions, the greatest evil in this situation is the pervasive princess fantasy. Even SJW feminists want to believe there’s a wealthy, woke prince ready to make her the object of slavish affection and devotion of an entire nation.  

This is why Cindirella should not be shown to your little girl. That, and the majority of the cultural content produced for them. Also, not having her get in contact with society helps, else she will go from loving blue to loving pink within one week of starting kindergarten (true story...)

[Yukle]

3 hours ago, Iskaral Pust said:

As much as I disdain monarchic institutions, the greatest evil in this situation is the pervasive princess fantasy. Even SJW feminists want to believe there’s a wealthy, woke prince ready to make her the object of slavish affection and devotion of an entire nation.  

... I don't?

If you're going to judge this fantasy, it's no different to wanting to be a jedi, or a wizard, or a sports star, or a fashion icon, or a movie star.

They're not particularly serious dreams, just fun ideas in your head from childhood. And certainly it's not a belief. Women buying magazines following the royal wedding, for instance, are indulging in a fantasy. It's not any less legitimate than obsessively following basketball stars online as they go from club to club.

To return the judgement, it's not fair to belittle a traditionally feminine fantasy as somehow inferior. I don't care if girls want to be princesses or if they want to be jedi, just as long as they chose it. In all probability, they'll go through phases of wanting both.

[TrueMetis]

I mean at least they're fantasizing about something that's possible. I'm never going get to be a Jedi.

[Jace, Extat]

Jace would call wanting to be a princess an inferior fantasy, one born of programming girls to be pretty and useless.

That being said, ain't no Jace EVER wanted no prince.

I like my men the way I like my gumbo. Hearty and with ingredients born from the dirt.

[Yukle]

1 hour ago, Pony Empress Jace said:

Jace would call wanting to be a princess an inferior fantasy, one born of programming girls to be pretty and useless.

My aim is to lift how feminine fantasies are viewed and portrayed, not redirect girls to "better" more boy-like ideas. Princess fantasies shouldn't be thrown out, just made far more active and independent.

Frozen did this pretty well; the two princesses in it are the protagonists, neither is passive, both are in control and men have only side-bits in the story.

[Jace, Extat]

16 minutes ago, Yukle said:

My aim is to lift how feminine fantasies are viewed and portrayed, not redirect girls to "better" more boy-like ideas. Princess fantasies shouldn't be thrown out, just made far more active and independent.

Frozen did this pretty well; the two princesses in it are the protagonists, neither is passive, both are in control and men have only side-bits in the story.

What does being a princess have to do with being a protagonist? 

I'd prefer the common woman be empowered, a la Atomic Blond or Mad Max: Fury Road rather than attempt to reverse engineer an inherently demeaning and infantile 'ideal'.

[mankytoes]

20 minutes ago, Yukle said:

My aim is to lift how feminine fantasies are viewed and portrayed, not redirect girls to "better" more boy-like ideas. Princess fantasies shouldn't be thrown out, just made far more active and independent.

Frozen did this pretty well; the two princesses in it are the protagonists, neither is passive, both are in control and men have only side-bits in the story.

I mean, it's hard to think of a fantasy that's more passive than that of being a princess. That's only achievable by marriage, not by merit. A princess can be active, but only despite being a princess. 

On the other hand, having recently worked with children, I did see this princess obsession, and it does seem pretty overwhelming, but I didn't think the girls who were that obsessed with princesses were less likely to, say, want to join in physical games. Whether that's down to Frozen, I don't know, but maybe the whole thing is more harmless than I imagine. 

Still, if any daughter of mine becomes a princess type it will be despite my parenting, not because of it. 

[Errant Bard]

3 hours ago, Yukle said:

To return the judgement, it's not fair to belittle a traditionally feminine fantasy as somehow inferior. I don't care if girls want to be princesses or if they want to be jedi, just as long as they chose it. In all probability, they'll go through phases of wanting both.

Uh, so, considering jedi is more of a boy thing and princess a girl one, you argue for gender essentialism, correct? Since those girl "choose" it, in your opinion, I mean.

[TrueMetis]

Shaak Ti and Aayla Secura would like a word mate.

[Errant Bard]

I wasn't aware that the existence of female jedi characters contradicted the gender repartition of the franchise fans... mate.

 

ETA: I mean this does not change my question about gender essentialism: if it's really a choice, why is this fantasy an almost exclusively feminine one? Maybe I'm missing something and there are a majority of men fantasying about passively rising above their station by virtue of being chosen by a princess?

[Larry of the Lawn]

5 hours ago, Errant Bard said:

I wasn't aware that the existence of female jedi characters contradicted the gender repartition of the franchise fans... mate.

 

ETA: I mean this does not change my question about gender essentialism: if it's really a choice, why is this fantasy an almost exclusively feminine one? Maybe I'm missing something and there are a majority of men fantasying about passively rising above their station by virtue of being chosen by a princess?

I'm confused.  What does gender essentialiam have to do with this?  This princess fantasy, as you call it, could just as easily be socially constructed.  You haven't done anything to suggest otherwise.

ETA: guess my point is that describing something as 'traditionally feminine' makes absolutely zero claim as to whether or not the person is a gender essentialist or not.