Looking into the thought of why girls should act and behave a certain way. It seems like it is an ideal that was sold in the 1950s by men. So it doesn't really say anything about their true nature.
Now the question is why do men want girls to act in that manner. The hypothesis would be that it has some kind biological roots. That men need to feel like they are the protectors of weak and innocent.
Assuming a fraction of this is true, then I can understand the #feminism movement to ridicule the #propaganda apposed onto womenkind to suppress their nature.
@freeschool well the question still needs to be answered if tendencies align with nature? Or if it has been propagated onto them?
@freeschool this sounds like a more elaborate way of saying "nature vs nurture".
Maybe an example might help to understand my original post. For example that girls need to be pretty and act a specific way to enforce their innocents.
Afaik this is propagated feature and has little to do with nature.
@barefootstache
In my experience a girl / lady would anyway have such things in mind... and man just enforced or exploited their nature... and that I feel that is also part of nature as man somewhat... but sticking to topic much like a flower or something that needs to give birth needs to attract a pollinator or mate (or male) then one acts or is accordingly (as well as feeling the biological urge to reproduce or take care of another, or have a man do the defending work).
So while there is patriarchy and everything anyway everywhere, you might find girls / females playing with more female things and role-playing female things anyway according to reproduction or finding a mate (fairytales / finding a prince / caring for kids / taking care of the house / cooking / cleaning) all because they also want to (and not limited to that) and have natural affinity towards what they do. You couldn't stop them same as it's hard to stop yourself working your other muscles!
Maybe I have veered off topic or it's more different with everyone nowadays but I believe / have seen consistently and ask... so I'll accept limited defeat here saying some things (such as your self) are much less inescapable or without major work if you would decide to change.
@freeschool well the hard thing is to observe a natural state in a civilized society that has propagated ideals all over the place.
The question might be more appropriate in a hunter-gatherer tribe. If your list of examples still hold up?
On the aspect of attraction and comparing it to a flower, really doesn't work. Afaik flowers don't go out of their ways to become more beautiful, they take what they have and do their best based off of the environment they were handed.
People can apply the same principles and attraction would still exist. The part that diverges is that people go out of their way to enhance certain aesthetically pleasing features in the hope to get more mate options. This aspect can also be found in the animal kingdom.
Maybe this has answered my original question.
@barefootstache No doubt in my mind that you are born with many things and can have it trained in or out / enhance it too (but the aforementioned is stronger or starts first).
If you are starting from something / born that then you are that (to some extent or to start with) while you can become something else and can choose as you go (you are growing and changing)
I get the feeling you're seeing it as one or other or slightly binary this or the other - the consideration of growth has lots of variables but you start from x or y mainly (not only).
So bit of both *but* you can't change very easily your biological self or existence - and after existing / bring born then you can start working on anything else.
(I'm not sure why you have any doubts to be honest..)
So I'm not asking but perhaps explore in yourself why not the above or points... or what makes you doubt it more than support it.
I think the base of this is solid while you can be other possibilities or avenues of development, it's on top of being born first :)