*I initially rolled eyes at my DDs love of all things girly. I was a tomboy and wanted to be George out of the famous five. I’m still like that.
I realised it was conditioning to think that “feminine” pursuits are silly and inferior*
This, THIS, a hundred times THIS!!!
I was another tomboy and I didn't really grow out of that "feminine pursuits are inferior"-attitude until I was educated by my own intelligent, vocal, ultra-feminist, lipstick-and-mascara-wearing daughter.
Now I can see it for what it is: it is the automatic assumption that anything that boys do is ipso facto more worthy- until girls start doing it instead and then we will have to grab onto something else to admire.
For a long time there was an assumption that the academic humanities were only suitable for boys as girls didn't have the brains to learn Latin and history and all that sort of stuff. Biology and botany might just be ok for girls as that didn't require you to be so clever.
Then humanities became a "girly" subject- and consequently considered less intellectually stringent.
Men used to be chefs in the olden days- clearly something as responsible as cooking for his lordship could only be managed by the male brain. Then people started employing women (because they were cheaper)- bingo! cooking is a girlie thing! (unless you're a French chef: Frogs aren't really proper men, anyway).
In the 17th and 18th century, men (the kind of man who might be leading an army on the battlefield) wore makeup and enough lace to smother a battalion. In the 19th century, fashions changed- and now we are convinced that wearing lipstick somehow makes you incapable of leading the country or finding a cure for cancer. Because girls wear it.
if I prevented him from expressing his like for something I'd be teaching him that that things is less than another thing.... which in turn might lead him to view people who like that thing as less than him.
THIS.