Why So Few Girls In Children’s Books

Here’s a very interesting article by Jennie Yabroff from the Washington Post:

Why are there so few girls in children’s books?

The main characters — whether they’re human, animal, a snowplow or a crayon — are almost always male.

images-1.jpgFirst, the central character in more published children’s literature is male. Like the movie biz, girls (it’s kiddie lit, remember) are necessary for some semblance of reality but they are generally not the lead character (the hero) and they are not paid as much as the boys.

Yabroff writes:

Of the 69 Caldecott Medal and Honor winners since 2000, just four — “Kitten’s First Full Moon,” “Interrupting Chicken,” “Olivia” and “A Ball for Daisy” (which has no text but identifies Daisy as “she” on the jacket copy) — have animal protagonists that are clearly identified as female. Recent bestseller lists are topped by books starring crayons, fish and a snowplow: all male or non-gendered. Lists from Scholastic and Time magazine of the best 100 picture books include fewer than 10 female non-human characters. If these books reflected reality, we wouldn’t have to wonder why the dinosaurs went extinct — there were no females around for them to reproduce with.

Continue reading

Even M*A*S*H finished its run

One of the most troublesome topics I encounter is the artificial continuation of a species, a language, a forest, or a Crayola color that has passed the threshold of usefulness to the continuation of the earth and its inhabitants.

We have all heard about the flock of rare birds that have been closely protected and now number in double digits, or of the obscure Indian language that only three people remember and no one is interested in learning so they can talk to their ancestors buried beneath the macadam of the Home Depot parking lot, or of a crayon color which is indistinguishable from at least three other crayon colors. (Crayola will always carry the shame of that light salmon stick called “Flesh”).

A few years ago I was touring in the American west and the guide made it clear that forest fires, predator animals, and animal poop are all vital to the health of the undeveloped range and were best seen as good things. Our guide had many interesting stories of how Man took over the management of the wild and made a complete mess of things, far worse than if they had just left it alone. He considered Smokey the Bear as an early terrorist who had brought great destruction to our country. Of course, there are tremendous outside pressures of the free, open parts of our country:  cattle ranchers insist on any animals capable of harming their herds being killed on sight for a healthy bounty; troublesome animals and plants being removed to less valuable lands so their traditional habitat can be stripped of all the wealth possible before it is returned to the wild;

New growth after the fire

The guide informed us, as we drove through the burned out sections of the forest and the hillsides full of dead and dying trees, that although the big forest fire had engulfed half of Yellowstone, there was still the other half left to enjoy. He also pointed out that the dry, dead trees were being killed by beetles that are normally controlled by forest fires, but Smokey the Bear has been so successful, the fires are down, the beetles are up, and the forest is dying just as fast as if Man had left it alone. He pointed out that regular fires open the forest and the glades become rich habitat for the animals:  moose, wapiti, bison, deer, etc. He also told us of the reintroduction of wolves into the park since it was discovered that the wolves were a vital part of the ecology, especially in controlling vermin (of course the wolves were earlier eliminated at the request of the ranchers that didn’t want them coming out of the protected forest to nosh on their sheep or beef).

Continue reading