Some years ago, when I was judging a book award, I entered
the room and found two other female judges, both librarians. We had three hours
to make a decision. It took us four, even though only two books were on the
table after about thirty minutes.
the room and found two other female judges, both librarians. We had three hours
to make a decision. It took us four, even though only two books were on the
table after about thirty minutes.
And then came the long stand-off between one of the
librarians and me. One book had a female protagonist and the other a male
protagonist. And the argument went something like this:
librarians and me. One book had a female protagonist and the other a male
protagonist. And the argument went something like this:
“But boys aren’t reading, and I can hand this book to a
boy,” said Librarian 1.
boy,” said Librarian 1.
“Well, I’m sure that’s true, but it isn’t as well written,”
I said.
I said.
“Yes, but…but I can turn a boy into a reader,” said
Librarian 2. “Imagine what he could read. We could have another reader for
life.”
Librarian 2. “Imagine what he could read. We could have another reader for
life.”
We have had many people tell us that boys
are in crisis, that boys don’t read enough. Guysread
is an excellent website dedicated to getting boys to read. I do think it’s a legitimate
problem; I’m not saying we should ignore it. Instead, perhaps we need to
rethink our approach.
are in crisis, that boys don’t read enough. Guysread
is an excellent website dedicated to getting boys to read. I do think it’s a legitimate
problem; I’m not saying we should ignore it. Instead, perhaps we need to
rethink our approach.
To date our approach has been to write, publish, and market
books for boys—books about machines, dinosaurs, and sports, but few—if any—about
other concerns boys have: friendships and relationships. These are typically
considered “girl concerns.”
books for boys—books about machines, dinosaurs, and sports, but few—if any—about
other concerns boys have: friendships and relationships. These are typically
considered “girl concerns.”
I’ve raised a boy who is a consummate reader and I’ve tried
to figure out how he escaped this epidemic of boy non-readership. My son reads
everything from literary to not, from nonfiction to fiction. He devoured when
he read middle grade. For a short time, we worried as his reading slowed while
at the end of middle school, but he came roaring back into the young adult
genre.
to figure out how he escaped this epidemic of boy non-readership. My son reads
everything from literary to not, from nonfiction to fiction. He devoured when
he read middle grade. For a short time, we worried as his reading slowed while
at the end of middle school, but he came roaring back into the young adult
genre.
I’ve also raised a girl who is a consummate reader. Like her
brother, she reads everything and then some. After reading her brother’s Harry
Potter and Rick Riordan, she got frustrated. “No girls”, she complained. So we
went to book people: libraries and booksellers and teachers. They all quickly
ran out of recommendations. They had been well prepped to recommend male
authors and male protagonists, ready to solve the boys in crisis problem. But
for girls? Well, they’d recommend the same books because, as I was told again
and again, “girls will read anything.”
brother, she reads everything and then some. After reading her brother’s Harry
Potter and Rick Riordan, she got frustrated. “No girls”, she complained. So we
went to book people: libraries and booksellers and teachers. They all quickly
ran out of recommendations. They had been well prepped to recommend male
authors and male protagonists, ready to solve the boys in crisis problem. But
for girls? Well, they’d recommend the same books because, as I was told again
and again, “girls will read anything.”
What does that mean that “girls will read anything”? That we
are less picky? That we are less discerning? Less qualified? Or is it a case of:
we aren’t the squeaky wheel? That we don’t need to be catered to and
represented?
are less picky? That we are less discerning? Less qualified? Or is it a case of:
we aren’t the squeaky wheel? That we don’t need to be catered to and
represented?
Either way, this litany of questions sounds to me like a
litany of excuses that reinforce a biased expectation: girls can/should read
across gender, but boys, who need prodding to read, should be catered to.
litany of excuses that reinforce a biased expectation: girls can/should read
across gender, but boys, who need prodding to read, should be catered to.
We are afraid to give boys the chance to read “girls’ books”,
afraid we’ll alienate them and they will no longer be readers for life. But who
says that boys can’t read across gender, too?
afraid we’ll alienate them and they will no longer be readers for life. But who
says that boys can’t read across gender, too?
What if, instead of catering to a narrow definition of boys’
interests, we encouraged boys to read across gender as well? What if, instead
of having essentially pink and blue literary aisles, we claim reading as
gender-neutral territory?
interests, we encouraged boys to read across gender as well? What if, instead
of having essentially pink and blue literary aisles, we claim reading as
gender-neutral territory?
A few months ago Laura Ruby showed me Maureen
Johnson’s wonderful post about gendered covers that visually demonstrated
how marketing skews female covers to look “cute” and “funny” rather than
literary. It’s remarkable to see how these subtle differences change the way
that women are regarded in the field. It’s remarkable to note how people have
suggested that children’s literature is
skewed so heavily to estrogen side of things when in fact, female novelists
only comprise 56% of novels in published in 2012 Children’s literature
(although the awards don’t represent that, running at only 36% for books with YA
female protagonists). Having a nearly equal voice, we are told, is regarded
as though we have a dominant voice. This recalls a recent study which
demonstrated that only when women spoke 30% to a man’s 70% did the listeners
feel the talk-time was equal.
Johnson’s wonderful post about gendered covers that visually demonstrated
how marketing skews female covers to look “cute” and “funny” rather than
literary. It’s remarkable to see how these subtle differences change the way
that women are regarded in the field. It’s remarkable to note how people have
suggested that children’s literature is
skewed so heavily to estrogen side of things when in fact, female novelists
only comprise 56% of novels in published in 2012 Children’s literature
(although the awards don’t represent that, running at only 36% for books with YA
female protagonists). Having a nearly equal voice, we are told, is regarded
as though we have a dominant voice. This recalls a recent study which
demonstrated that only when women spoke 30% to a man’s 70% did the listeners
feel the talk-time was equal.
In choosing fiction for children, we all suffer from
internalized sexism. Certainly I did. I had thought I had been giving my son
books about girls and boys, until my daughter started reading middle grade, and
suddenly the dearth of books became clear.
internalized sexism. Certainly I did. I had thought I had been giving my son
books about girls and boys, until my daughter started reading middle grade, and
suddenly the dearth of books became clear.
But perhaps most notable for me now is that my son’s
resurgence in reading as he moved into YA was simply this: he started reading
more and more books with female protagonists—that is what brought him back to
reading. While we
frequently hear the complaint that boys leave reading because of the dominance
of female protagonists, my son came back to reading because of female
protagonists.
resurgence in reading as he moved into YA was simply this: he started reading
more and more books with female protagonists—that is what brought him back to
reading. While we
frequently hear the complaint that boys leave reading because of the dominance
of female protagonists, my son came back to reading because of female
protagonists.
So, when I say, “don’t forget about the boys,” I don’t mean
we need to prioritize books about dinosaurs and robots, about boy books. We
don’t need to reward boy books because they can reach male readers and female
readers, both. I mean instead, we need to start to recommend “girls’ books” to
boys. We need to stop protecting boys from girly books with girly topics—romance,
sentiments. We need to stop protecting boys from girls themselves. We need to
remember that boys have all sorts of concerns, like girls, and we need
literature that answers child concerns, eliminating the notion that concerns
and interests are gendered at all. And we need to stop thinking of it as
“girl’s literature” just because it has a female protagonist or a focus on
romance or relationships; coming of age requires empathy across genders in
addition to representation. Girls are being taught this empathy; don’t forget
about the boys.
we need to prioritize books about dinosaurs and robots, about boy books. We
don’t need to reward boy books because they can reach male readers and female
readers, both. I mean instead, we need to start to recommend “girls’ books” to
boys. We need to stop protecting boys from girly books with girly topics—romance,
sentiments. We need to stop protecting boys from girls themselves. We need to
remember that boys have all sorts of concerns, like girls, and we need
literature that answers child concerns, eliminating the notion that concerns
and interests are gendered at all. And we need to stop thinking of it as
“girl’s literature” just because it has a female protagonist or a focus on
romance or relationships; coming of age requires empathy across genders in
addition to representation. Girls are being taught this empathy; don’t forget
about the boys.
Thank you, Swati, for your remarkable insight. My mind instantly clicked on this line from a recent StarTribune article about male/female relationships in our society and the rising number of tragic break-ups. "In other words, women are developing more traditionally male traits to navigate society, but are we teaching boys any traditionally female traits to help them cope with life?" If not at home, where else could a boy be safely and discretely exposed to the variety of emotions, their value and how to manage them, but in books "for girls?"
Thanks, Jane. I'll need to checkout that article. What a great echo.
I don't have much to add, except that yesterday I came across this clip of Jane Fonda speaking to this exact same concern on UpWorthy. I hope the link works. Thank you for your insights. http://www.upworthy.com/they-asked-if-she-had-anything-else-she-wanted-to-say-to-the-audience-thats-when-she-took-it-home?c=ufb1
I love the way Jane Fonda puts it — emotional literacy. Thanks for sharing that link and I'm glad to see that this is becoming more of a mainstream idea. I hope that this way it will take root and reshape our conversations about gender.
Thanks, Swati – so insightful. And true. Covers play a huge role and stories with a female protagonist invariably have girlie covers that boys will not even pick up. Don't get me started on two books out here for Christmas -Stories for Boys and Stories for Girls – with (you guessed it) blue and pink covers.
Is there something wrong with the color green? Or how about red? I would buy a book that sad Christma– Stories for all that was red and green. It would feel say, Christmas-y 🙂 Thanks for reading.
Great post, Swati! I think a lot of people forget that stories teach empathy, and that boys need this as much as girls do. Perhaps even more, considering that our culture encourages boys to deny the importance of their own and others' emotions (just as it seems hellbent on denying girls agency). I'm reminded of an essay that Matt de la Pena wrote for NPR, in which he confesses he didn't read much until a college professor handed him THE COLOR PURPLE . He says:
"Novels became my secret place to "feel." My dad and uncles didn't need to know about it. Neither did my teammates. But I could sense something happening inside of me: reading was making me whole.
Today when I write my own novels…I'm also conscious of the powerful function literature can serve — especially in the lives of kids growing up the way I did. My goal as a writer is to recede into the background, allowing readers to fully participate. I want them to be able to watch the characters and listen to conversations and be free to form judgments of their own. I believe it's in this space that young readers acquire experience with complex emotions like empathy and sensitivity, which makes them more likely to be in tune with emotional nuance out in the real world."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/11/11/243960103/a-reluctant-reader-turns-ya-author-for-tough-teens
Wow, that's amazing, Laura. Thanks for your thoughts. What a fabulous way to bring this to concept into writing itself.
As a librarian, I find this idea (encouraging boys to read across genders) to be fascinating. Perhaps the reason we lose so many boy readers is because what is out there for them specifically (boy books) are not exactly great literature. Let's discuss at residency! Meanwhile I'm going to try this cross-gender idea in my readers' advisory and see how it goes!!
Update us! Let us know what you think! I had a conversation today about this thought when Matt de la Pena spoke on MPR about how in some circles the notion becomes that reading for boys makes them "soft" but then we value empathy from everyone. If we gender reading as an act, we are really discouraging boys from it, whether we mean to/want to or not.