u/CalciumIsARandomName

In the art book it shows all of their gems emerging around 20,000 years ago roughly, so why is Pink treated as a child and acted as if she was significantly younger and not ready for the responsibilities of a diamond? Even if she was the last to form of the 4, she would still be over 10 thousand years old (pre gem war and colony) and was shown to possess immense power like the other Diamonds. Despite this, she was shunned from the privileges of the others and more kept around as a mascot than anything of true substantial authority.

Whats more is that Gems believed they are incapable of change and are born (well, emerged) perfect and already matured, especially in era 2 with the absence of a child stage so even if she was the last to form she should been viewed with the same maturity as the other Diamonds.

Before I get downvoted to oblivion again, please hear me out.

Look, im not a mabel hater. In fact, I think she is a very compassionate 12 year old that throughout the series has done many compassionate things. However, there is a really common idea that Mabel is either the most perfect character or the worst, and neither is really correct. Just because she had a bad moment that was unusual for her doesn't erase all of her goodness and glitter, she was scared and desperate and it was a realistic thing to do as a 12 year old. If anything, it grounds her to being like a realistic 12 year old and makes her character's depiction better in the show. These two extremes are strange because if either were true, the character would just be 1 dimensional and boring, but one of the positives about this show is that the characters (except sadly Wendy) get a lot of depth and time on their development.

Her good moments outweigh any that could be thought as her bad, and that makes her a better and more rounded character. So rather than pretending like she is one thing or another, let's just appreciate that Alex made her pretty complex for a show originally made for Disney.