Why is there such a strong association between femininity and royalty, and why don't boys and men get a similar association?
Girls grow up being told that they are princesses, and generally wanting to pretend to be princesses. But boys don't pretend to be princes- they usually pretend to be a knight or a wizard in the medieval/fantasy setting, or otherwise some job like a cowboy or astronaut.
Even as adults, women will regularly refer to each other as queens. "YAAAS QUEEN, SLAY!" But men never refer to each other as kings, or have any kind of royal conception of themselves. In fact, it is more common for a cisgendered gay man to call himself a "queen", aping women's verbiage, than it is for a straight man to call himself a king.
So are men the peasants of gender? Why don't we have the royal aspirations of women?
OP here, I'm also especially curious to hear from anyone who speaks other languages. Does this trend hold outside of English-speaking cultures?
Eli Moore
It's a subtle nod to how they were born lucky with an easier life thanks to being born female, similar to being born in a royal family.
Benjamin Moore
Actually being THIS autistic Yes OP, men are the new niggers.
Jordan Cox
Is it still autistic if I'm correct? You agreed with me, does that make you autistic too?
Ryder Hughes
No. Women where I am from are expected to build, fix fences, wash and reap hay. We got gender communism.
Dominic Ortiz
You think they realize they were born lucky? Then why do they accept the whole "patriarchy" thing?
Robert Carter
Where (approximately) are you from?
Jaxson Morris
>But boys don't pretend to be princes citation needed
Kayden Wilson
No, that was just a joke really. To give an honest answer, I think it's because royalty is closely related to traits like elegance and grace which are typically seen as feminine.
Levi Torres
North eastern europe. Bring me my princess years. ree! Instead I'm made to take care of the garden this cinderalla peasantry never ends.
Well it's a combination of the monarchy poising itself as a matriarchal/mother figure to the country and that that they sit around and rule from the home while the people go out and work to serve them
Thomas Edwards
But that's just pushing the question back a step. Why are these royal traits not masculine? And what about ruling, conquering, commanding, leading? Those are royal masculine traits.
Matthew Cook
>new the underclass has always been for the upperclass, this is nothing new. if you're poor your options in life are limited to the cards you're dealt. just looking at Jow Forums you can see boys act like princes
Andrew Russell
Aren't kings a patriarchal/father figure though?
People almost never talk about princes on Jow Forums, I'm not sure I've even seen the word 'prince' used on this board before this thread.
Elijah Kelly
>People almost never talk about princes on Jow Forums, I'm not sure I've even seen the word 'prince' used on this board before this thread. that doesn't mean robots don't act entitled
Levi Johnson
I always seen the term of prince to be a flimsy and feminine title.
Robert Allen
Probably, because of north not even women are allowed to sit around and look pretty if you'd want to survive everyone had to work. Even kids.
Luke Williams
Well, let's go down the list >women prefer to sit and do nothing while men actually do things and improve >women are decadent shitpiles while men are humble >women treat their perceived subordinates like shit but can't exist comfortably without them Or perhaps it's because feminism has brainwashed the population into believing giving women preferential treatment over your own sons (even if they aren't your daughters, too) is normal and ok. Perhaps it's because men are told since they're boys that very same thing and told to believe that it's ok. Maybe it's because this society is broken at its very core and nobody will lift a finger to fix it lest they be called a sexist, racist, or homophobe. Maybe that's also why men can't get raped according to the law. The world needs to burn.
Angel Cox
us-americans can never understand this. As a prince or king you are not allowed to experience adventures. this is why you choose knight.
Bentley Carter
So it's either a difference in their inherent nature, or a difference in the way they are treated by feminism? In that case it would be interesting to see how far back this trend goes. If it predates feminism, then it must be some innate gender difference.
So 'knight' gives boys a chance to simulate their increased tendency for risk-taking? Do you think it's that boys inherently crave risk and adventure more, or that they are socialized to take more risks?
Christopher Hernandez
We are biologically stronger therefore it is a safer bet for us to be risk takers.
I'm pretty sure it's just inherent, but I really hope that isn't the case. We came from a primal past. All that existed was Chad and his harem, and the unproductive betas dicking around. One day, Chad got the idea to dissolve (most of) his harem and give them to the betas, in exchange that they work for him. Farming food for Chad, patrolling Chad's lands, guarding Chad when he sleeps, keeping order for Chad. When Chad dies, his sons take over. And then we had society. Everything since then has only been a refinement of this. Sure, we got the the point where it's not all for Chad and the people rule with their vote, but the parties are still dominated by Chad and his beta followers, they vote Chad into office. Why would women have changed that much? Putting them in charge wouldn't help this at all, because they would only long to return to Chad's harem, which breaks down society. They will tell men that they're worthless trash to weed out Chad from the betas, and still expect betas to work for this society. Them they get mad when they stop working, and drop out of society. Until humans stop thinking like this, nothing will change. We either keep the rogue elements in check, or give up and return to the caves in ignorance.
Ethan Gutierrez
It comes from the old tradition where, a girl possibly could become royalty. Back when you had royals governing the land and wandering the countryside, you very well could end up with even some peasant commoner girl catch the eye of a nobleman and end up married and herself become nobility or even royalty if it were some minor prince.
So you get this historical hope and dream of women and even their families for them, that they could apsire to become royalty through marriage, because the woman herself was pretty enough or elegant enough. You can imagine a peasant farmer father, telling his daughter at night that she could be a princess because that very possibly could happen even if it's a low chance.
Meanwhile, barring very rare cases (like in China in the past), you would never have female royalty marrying commoner men and uplifting them to male royalty. It was a low enough chance for a peasant girl, but it was basically a 0% chance for a peasant boy.
Daniel Foster
And a further addition to this, the dream of a girl becoming a princess is still alive even today, like with that Megan Markle roastie that went from being some thot in LA to being a princess of England.
