Read on Twitter
#VintageMagTweets come today from this fascinating New jersey analysis of reading books for children.
The original experiment took place in 1972, but there's an update in this 1975 edition.
The fact that the authors chose reading schemes to look at rather than general fiction for children is important, because kids couldn't *choose* these books. They were fed them regardless.
The fact that the authors chose reading schemes to look at rather than general fiction for children is important, because kids couldn't *choose* these books. They were fed them regardless.
And here are the names of those involved. *tips hat*
Here's a boy having fun! Here's a girl doing housework!
Boys go on to have academic careers, while girls grow up to keep house.
In every scheme the same pattern was there: stories were mainly about boys and men. Girl readers were just expected to accept that male lives were more interesting and deserving of centre stage.
And of course it tells boys the same message.
17 real life women are worth reading about, versus 88 men.
And this is a good point. You'd think there'd be more learning from reading about a woman who's had to fight to get where she is because of her sex, than reading about a man who's faced no such issues.
Occupation-wise, what do the female characters get to do? Not as much as the male ones.
And even those female characters in jobs were circumscribed by stereotype.
Girl sits quiet and listless while boy is Active and Noisy.
Although, even while the girl is sitting there bored, she's still presented as nurturing.
In children's reading books, boy characters are consistently presented as cleverer and more ingenious.
Boys are four times better at persevering than girls.
Then again, boys don't have the distraction of keeping their dresses nice.
Then again, boys don't have the distraction of keeping their dresses nice.
Male characters are more heroic.
Girls can sometimes be heroic, but mainly on a smaller, domestic scale.
I'll add some more to this thread on Sunday.
