Boys and girls

[ladyofastolat]

Ordering books today, I find these two books:

Illustrated Classics for Girls. Pink cover, edged with flowers, with Heidi frollicking with goats. "A collection of stories of adventure and magic suitable for girls. This delightful collection contains six timeless classic stories to enchant and delight." Contents are abridged versions of Heidi, Little Women, The Railway Children, Black Beauty, The Secret Garden, and The Wizard of Oz.

Illustrated Classics for Boys. Blue-ish cover, edged with black trees, showing a moonlit forest scene, with someone (a highwayman?) galloping through it. "A collection of stories of action, adventure and daring-do suitable for boys. This lively collection contains six thrilling classic stories of action and adventure." Contents are abridged versions of Moonfleet, Around the World in 80 Days, Gulliver's Travels, Robin Hood, The Canterville Ghost, and Robinson Crusoe.

Yes, yes, I know I'm ranted about this before. I know that children are usually the first to announce that something is "for boys" or "for girls." But... But...

I think it's the word "suitable" that particularly grates.

Comments

[purplecat]

G. we have observed has a clear and definite preference for action/adventure type stories with female protagonists.

I think this is partly the attraction of the endless fairy books which have quite a strong focus on adventure (or at least goblin peril) as opposed to, say, school or growing up experiences. But we do find it restricts our choice a lot because she generally doesn't want to read or watch something if its about a boy. It's also a problem in selecting readers since the choice is frequently between Jane plays with her little brother or John's exciting pirate adventure. G. wants to read Jane's exciting pirate adventure and has no truck with the other two.

I guess I sort of wish this segregation focused around simply whether there were male or female protagonists, not around the extent to which action and derring-do feature in the stories - though I can see there is a historical problem there.

[ladyofastolat.livejournal.com]

I can't think of many exciting adventures featuring girls for that age group, no. Novels for slightly older children, though, tend to be ruthlessly equal opportunity about things, and usually offer a matched pair of main characters. It's strange that there isn't more exciting female adventure for young children, since there's plenty of it in adult fantasy writing. (I speak as someone with a ridiculous aversion to female main characters in adventure stories, who abandons many a book after just the blurb.)

[purplecat]

I recently brought back "Lucy and the Sea Monster to the Rescue" from Blackwells in Edinburgh and it was a great success. Female protagonist, adventure, G. could read it herself and PUZZLES!!! The back suggests there are several others in the series which also have girls in them so we've got them all lined up for Christmas.

[phoebesmum.livejournal.com]

In my case it was the word 'abridged' that grated (and then the rest of it). I am such a snob. No, I don't really expect ten-year-olds to read the whole of - hang about; most of the books in the boys' section, but I would expect them to be able to read all the books in the girls' section.

Why are the girls' books actual children's books and the boys' books truncated adult reads?

(This is largely a rhetorical question, as it only hit me as I was typing, but if you have any theories ...)

[bunn.livejournal.com]

I wondered that too! Long time since I read it, but surely the language of Gulliver's Travels is not uber-accessible compared to say 'Heidi' (thought it's even longer since I read that, oh, how I hated it).

[segh.livejournal.com]

It's not just the language - Gulliver is a satire, after all, to get the cream of it you need to read it with footnotes (unless you're an expert in the period).

[ladyofastolat.livejournal.com]

I've often puzzled over the fact that so many nineteenth century adult novels have somehow become labelled as only for children. I suspect it's tied up with this silly idea that fantasy and science fiction is only for childish adults who refuse to grow up and do properly mature things like talk about mortgages and the price of carrots. Anything to do with galloping through forests, waving swords around, and thwarting villains, whether set in the past or in magical kingdoms, is "childish." While Victorian gentlefolk, while perfectly capable of being boring and starchy and horribly grown-up, saw nothing wrong with reading tales of high adventure.

[king-pellinor.livejournal.com]

No sex, limited violence.
Therefore not adult.
Ergo, for children.

I think it may also be that "not unsuitable for" has turned into suitable for". It's also perhaps a manifestation of the hand-me-down attitude that affects so many things. Fashion moves on, so adults don't want the old stuff, but it has sentimental value so they don't want it to disappear, so they pass it to the kids. Who don't want it, but have to look after it.

[wellinghall.livejournal.com]

See Tolkien's "On Fairy-Stories", passim ...

[adaese.livejournal.com]

Indeed - how and why would anyone abridge Canterville Ghost? It's not that long, but it's perfectly formed!

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

*steam comes out of ears*

You mean these books are being published now? They're not facsimiles from 1951?

Don't bother answering, for I can guess the answer! In children's publishing, it seems, the women's movement never happened, gender roles are fixed, girls are only interested in animals and helping round the house, all boys obsess about adventure on the high seas, etc. Grr! It makes me mad. And when I get mad, I... internalize it.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

On second thoughts, what also baffles and annoys me about these books, and others of their kind, is the sheer stupidity of marketing them like that. Because that packaging isn't really about attracting girls to the "girls'" book or boys to the "boys'" book: it's about excluding the "wrong" sex (and not in an ironic Yorkie bar way, either). You'd have to be a very self-confident boy to pick up that pink-edged tome and read The Secret Garden - what a waste! And how thick of the publisher to set about deliberately putting off half the potential audience (as well as being a gross example of oppositional sexism, of course).

[ladyofastolat.livejournal.com]

I think things have got a lot worse over the last few years. I don't remember this explicit polarisation ten years ago, nor do I remember children's shelves being a sea of pink. It's the boys I feel most sorry for. Girls are at least allowed to read "boys' books", and in every class of children I encounter, some girls take considerable pride in doing this. However, boys expressly forbid other boys from reading "girls' books." The emphasis is always on women's rights, but I think that boys (and men) are constrained by their sex as much as - and in some cases, more than - girls. There are so many things that they can't do without being mocked mercilessly.

I do classify fiction in my libraries, and have a "friends and family" section which I know full well will in reality be read only by girls, but I would never, ever say as much in the labelling or in the hearing of any customer. I was careful to colour code that section with a colour that was not pink.

[philia-fan.livejournal.com]

Hi, I'm stopping by from Sounis and couldn't help adding my agreement here.

I also think that the gender divide has gotten worse recently (in clothes as well as books), and this in an age when some people tell me there is no sexist agenda in society any more. Ahem.

I wonder if this isn't why so many kids (including my own) prefer to read books about animals. They come with less baggage. My daughter loathes pink and wouldn't pick up one of these "girl" books despite the fact that she might enjoy them a lot, so I agree that the packaging is stupidly exclusive.

[ladyofastolat.livejournal.com]

Even animal books are getting pink, it seems. There seem to be a lot of new series about fairy kittens or magical puppies, with pink sparkly covers. I overheard a boy telling another boy that "animal stories are for girls." A few years ago, though, I remember there being a lot of action-packed animal stories about wolves in the wild, or stories in which weasels and hedgehogs fought epic battles with swords and axes.

The other thing that always annoys me around this time of year is all the adverts for gifts "for her" (i.e. nothing I'd want) and "for him" (i.e. computer games and geeky gadgets.) I don't remember that being as polarised a few years ago, either.

[philia-fan.livejournal.com]

Never fear, Redwall is still going strong, as is Warriors (both of which have equal appeal among the boys and girls I know). Also Mouse Guard and Guardians of Gahoole and Kenneth Oppel's bats. Maybe I'm just not looking in the younger section any more, so I've been spared the fairy kittens!

[phoebesmum.livejournal.com]

Have I given you my conspiracy theory about the pinking of everything girl-related being a deliberate attempt (on the part of who? Some Dark and Sinister Force) to undermine the women's movement and undo the progress of the past 40 years?

I probably have. I roll it out on a semi-regular basis. I don't actually quite seriously believe it, but ...