Not a member? Sign up now
Study: Children's books are sexist
By Jeff MillsMay 4th, 2011, 4:00 pmComments (36)
A new Florida State University study, for the journal Gender and Society, suggests that those seemingly innocent children's books you grew up with actually have a sinister, patriarchal agenda, since a majority of their heroes are male. Sociologists believe that the lack of "sheroes," like Pippi Longstocking and Harriet the Spy, serves to reinforce for kids that "it's a man's man's man's world."
The study analyzed 6,000 popular children's books published in the twentieth century, and found that twenty-three percent of books featuring animals were based on male characters, contrasted against seven-and-a-half percent of books centering around female characters. The rest of the characters were either gender-neutral, or there wasn't a cut-and-dried male or female lead. And out of those remaining books, fifty-seven percent featured a male lead, while only thirty-one percent featured a strong female role model.
Though we live in what we imagine are more enlightened times, there's actually been an increased disparity in male/female-hero representation in children's books since 1900, when male and female leads were equally represented. The study's lead researcher, professor Janice McCabe, said:
"Children's books are a dominant blueprint of shared cultural values, meanings, and expectations. Books contribute to how children understand what is expected of women and men, and shape the way children will think about their own place in the world. Our findings regarding imbalanced representations among animal characters suggest that these characters could be particularly powerful, and potentially overlooked, conduits for gendered messages."
There's more than meets the eye with these animal characters; I learned that from a certain George Orwell novel. And notice that J.K. Rowling wrote a Harry Potter series, not a Hermione Granger series, possibly with an eye to the marketplace.
Commentarium (36 Comments)
And don't forget she agreed to be listed as "J.K. Rowling," instead of "Joanne Rowling" because her publisher thought it would be easier to market the series to boys that way.
Wouldn't a Hermione Granger series be so wonderful?
So, among other consequences of living in a sexist world (children's books and all): Emma Watson made at the most $2 million per HP film, while the actor who plays Harry made about $8 million per film. Both grossly overpaid, but Watson def. paid a discrimination fee (or that's one way to think about it). And this happens all the time in movies and TV.
Lead characters almost always make more than the rest of cast. Unless your Marlo Brando.
Right, and if more (way more) leads are male than female, then men are going to make more (way more) than women.
I know, and the actor for Harry is fugly... Emma Watson is pretty!!!
She said in an interview that Harry was a boy specifically because male leads are considered general fiction, and female protagonists are considered specialty lit.
I think kids tend to perceive reading as "something girls do." Children's books with male leads are often an attempt to sell more books to boys. Also, note the epic and endless Babysitter's Club and Sweet Valley High series of yore. Are there comparable series for boys?
Yes, the entirety of literature. (But it's not really a comparable series, you're right.)
Not EVERYTHING is a stab against women. Yes, it's awful that J.K.R. had to use her initials to get her books sold, but because she wrote about Harry and not Hermoine is NOT sexist. There are a lot of books directed towards girls, most of them have male heros because thats what girls read. They want the boy (edward cullen) to come in and save the damsel in distress(bella) so they can put themselves in the girls shoes. This is coming from a girl who takes womens studies courses.
This is just ridiculous.
Yes, it is true that there are loads of girls who want a boy to save them and solve all their problems, but not all women are like that and it is extremely unfair to judge all women because of that.
It is generally accepted that women are weaker than men and want the men to do the work for them, but why? Maybe it's because they are constantly being put down anyways. This doesn't just have to do with Harry Potter and Twilight... even in the Bible, it is Eve, the WOMAN, who is the "sinner" and eats the apple. ( But you have to think, where was Adam? Probably sleeping... And it's generally accepted that the evil snake, the one who coerced Eve to eat the apple, was a male.)
So no, not EVERYTHING is a stab against women, but most of the time it is. And even if you don't realize it, others do and they realize how unfair things are for women.
You may not think it's a big deal, but the fact that females are continuing to go unrepresented, even in childrens' books, is just another blow, an insult, and us women know that, as always, there are many more to come. And THAT is ridiculous.
I suspect a sinister zionist/grizzly indoctrination agenda behind the berenstein bears.
and the hardy boys? more like the "hardly" boys.
..because they're gay...get it?
Girls are able to relate to both male and female lead characters, but boys tend to dismiss female leads. I think publishing companies are just trying to publish books they have a better chance of selling
Oh, yes, the whole "it's only natural, mate" bit.
(Extremely boring.)
Because they are socialized not to identify with women from a young age. When a boy picks up a novel with a female protagonist, even as a very young child, he's going to get made fun of for it. That's not anything genetic, it's a learned behavior.
I remember this being true when I was a (female) kid. It didn't sink in much either way whether a character was male or female, it was about what kind of character he/she was. But like nope says, I doubt the transverse was true. "That's not a BOYS' book!"
Since when? I thought that kids (male or female) hated reading in general!!
Plus, as a boy, my favorite books were the Cam Jansen books. Why yes, that is a series with a female lead. Nobody made fun of me for that at all.
maybe people just liked you. Or maybe they were just too young to even care about whether it was a girl or a boy. But in my experience, especially as they grow up, children tend to notice more and more the differences between boys and girls and start acting on them ("Hey, that's a GIRL shirt... everybody, John is a GIRLLLLL!") And while this is common, for boys to think that anything that has to do with girls is bad, you scarcely ever hear girls having thoughts like that, or at least acting upon them.
So you market what sells.
What would they have publishers do? Adopt a hollywood model in that you continue to put out crap after crap and keep losing money just because you don't want to piss off some moron at a university doing a lame study? Or would you rather they put out a product that actually sells?
Frankly, there are more than those basic examples of female heros in childrens books and programming. Look at all the crap Disney produces (on television) or Dora.
And even if it were true, it doesn't seem to have an effect. Similar studies have shown that women generally outnumber men on college campuses and graduate far more often than men. So whats the connection?
That women work harder and are smarter despite all the barriers they face and the lack of female role-models?
haha. You know I'm joking... sorta.
Women are constantly being discriminated against and that type of thinking is the reason why! If people would just take risks and stop only caring about how much money they are going to make, if they would just get off their lazy ass and DO something, take a risk, maybe we wouldn't have this problem!
another thing with childrens illustrated books and movies is that the female is most always the lighter one. Where if the main male character is a brown horse with a black mane, the female will be a white horse with a yellow mane. I've rarely seen it the other way around
This is probably because women are traditionally supposed to be paler and more delicate than men, showing that they are weak and beautiful like hothouse flowers and need to be taken care of by the male characters. This is all very Victorian, and harkens back to a time when being tan meant that you had to perform manual labor.
Concidering most of the Disney princesses it's the same idea. Snow white is super pale and considered pretty.
The most recent Disney princess (Tangled aside, I'm referring to the most recent traditionally animated one) wasn't pale at all, unless now black is the new pale.
That may have been true in the Victorian ages, but I don't think that women these days are "delicate" and "weak" and need to be taken care of by men. These movie companies need to realize that us women have CHANGED and that we don't need to be taken care of (and I'm not sure we needed it to begin with). Super pale is considered pretty? Girls don't need to be pretty... god knows guys aren't. So why is it that there is so much pressure on girls to be "pretty" and vulnerable when really we could probably beat up half of you guys out there... or at least kick you in the balls really hard...
And this rubbish study is to be taken serious?
LOL...I read Hardy Boys as a kid and not Nancy Drew since she whines so much.
haha, BBC!
What's wrong with the world today? Janice, you don't think it's a good thing for boys to have books where the hero is a male doing the right thing? Isn't it a good thing for a childrens book to show boys that men should be responsible, nice, caring, protecting? I think young boys need that more than ever these days! I swear no one is gonna be happy until everything's split EXACTLY 50-50 for men and women. Here's a revelation for you: MEN AND WOMEN ARE DIFFERENT and have roles to play whether your PhD likes it or not! Always were and always will be. Learn to accept and even celebrate our differences instead of trying to force everyone into a mold. Most heros in books tend to be male... so what? If it upsets you so much. Write your own book and stop whining about it. Janice McCabe, grow up.
Clifford, would you care to elaborate on the differences between men and women and the roles they have to play? Say it as you see it, please.
And don't you think that girls need to have books where the hero is a woman doing the right thing? Because there are clearly enough books which feature a "perfect", male, hero.
And why shouldn't we be happy until everything's split 50/50. You have no right to assume how we should feel because you are NOT in the minority here. Go ahead and preach from your high horse, but you would argue over those percentages if you were on the other side. So you can talk all you want, but at the end of the day, the facts are that more books are about boys, and you are a guy.
Men and women are different? NO SHIT. But... they have "roles to play"? What does that mean? Should we revert to the old days, no, screw that... look at where we are today! Men go off to work (watch porn... sign their name on something... more porn...) while women take care of the house, raise the kids, go shopping, clean, cook, drive, and everything else under the sun? Are those the "roles" you are talking about? Because enforcing these differences and "roles" isn't really helping boys grow to be "responsible, nice, caring, protecting", is it?
And... "stop whining about it"?!?! Wow... I think we can all see who really needs to grow up here...
I've read plenty of books with a female lead....granted I'm a lover of fantasy novels...but still. I guess this article has some good points. I've just never felt this way about childrens books.
You can decide that any random statistic is a fact, and run with it, creating all kinds of reasoning behind it. The fact that there are more "male leads" doesn't mean that books are sexist. That's just stupid. I agree with Clifford when he wrote "If it upsets you so much, write your own book." I'm writing a story in which 3 of the principle characters are female. Not because I wanted to focus on females (I didn't even really notice I'd done it until after the fact) but because the characters happened to be female. "Studies" like this only serve to infuriate a group who feels slighted and cause a movement to correct whatever problem the study represents, reguardless of whether there is actually a problem at all. Who cares if most books have male leads? Have you ever considered the fact that maybe it's random, with no sinister reasoning behind it at all? Even if it's not random, I doubt the reasoning is that the books are sexist. More likely, writers are used to reading male characters, so they in turn write male characters. Besides, you're ignoring all the writers who do employ strong female leads. In fact, I would venture to say that any person who makes the assumption that a book featuring a male character is sexist is sexist themself. Afterall the person who cries "sexist" is clearly interested in the division between the sexes. (which means that person is sexist)
And why do they just "happen" to be female? The same reason why most books have a male lead character... Like you said, that's how they've learned, that's what they are used to. They learned to read with these childrens' books, few of which feature women. And so when they start writing that they remember that and that in turn influences them to write about men. And then their book will influence someone else and the cycle will continue. But some one, no... not one someone, but lots of someones, need to step up, and break the circle. Because if no body does then we will keep going on and on like this and women will continue to be unrepresented.
And, really? People who are interested in the division between the sexes are sexist? So does that mean that I hate Jews and want to take over the world just because I happen to major in European History and know a lot about Hitler and the Nazis?
Accept a little personal responsibility. There may be more books about boys, and more commercials for games where boys win, but in the states more women graduate college, a lower percentage are incarcerated, and a higher percentage are employed. Yes, we still make less (when comparing woman x in unknown field, to man x in unknown field), but we are also under performing in the fields of technology and science. JKR made a @#$%ton of money writing whimisical childrens' books, not winning a Nobel Prize for science.
its funny how people are accting like everything is a guys fault but the article was written by one.