Berishaj 1

Maria Berishaj

Dr. Wilson

ENG 2560

17 November 2017

The Complexity of Gender in Childrens Literature

Introduction

For years our great ancestors showed children the ways of the world through experience.

Children took in their environment, forming who they were to become. Then the power of

literature emerged, specifically literature for children. Children were, are, and will always be

able to use literature as a form of gaining insight into the world as well as a tool for shaping who

they become. One important aspect of every individual's life is gender; thus gender is commonly

displayed in childrens literature. Children are able to learn about gender, from the norms to how

it applies to their life; and since children are so malleable it has a large impact on who they

become and how they see others. For this reason, it is important to not only notice the trend of

gender in childrens literature, but to also look at the causes and effects that gender has on

children so that it can be modified for the better. Gender equality and progress in childrens

literature can be equated to the progress occurring in society. Yet progress advances in different

ways. This is seen in the strong push for normalcy of female characters integrating themselves

into masculine traits, creating a double standard in relation to the disruptiveness of male

characters integrating within feminine traits. Using this knowledge, it is important to look at the

legitimacy of the statements and the affects children incur. I plan to utilize research from three

scholarly articles, as well as a service learning project regarding interactions with and between

children to see how the lack of male characters with feminine qualities in children's literature
 Berishaj 2

exists, as well as how children cope and react to gender-variance, bringing attention to whether

childrens literature specifically aids in this.

Literature Review

Due to the eminent importance and relatability to gender and children, research has been

conducted to examine gender in one of the largest aspects of a childs life: literature. Looking at

literatures progression is one important way of understanding genders relation to childrens

literature. In the article Radical Children's Literature Now!, authors Julia Mickenberg and

Philip Nel focus on analyzing how certain topics are displayed in childrens literature

(Mickenberg 445). In terms of gender, the authors mention how childrens books display more

gender equality, which is done by challenging gender norms and promoting greater equality

between the two genders, yet it is done in a subtler way compared to the 1970s and 1980s

(Mickenberg 463). Rather than explicitly addressing gender equality, childrens literature does so

through the display of characters breaking gender norms. Authors Amanda Diekman and Sarah

Murnen add to the legitimacy of this statement in their article Learning to Be Little Women and

Little Men: The Inequitable Gender Equality of Nonsexist Childrens Literature where the

notion of gender equality having more prevalence now is stated often throughout the intro as if it

is an obvious claim (Diekman 374).

While there is acceptance of the idea that gender equality is more prevalent, there is also

wide acceptance of the imbalance between the equality of each gender in specifics to gender-

variance. Even if total gender equality has increased, there is wider acceptance of gender-

deviance in females than males. Mickenberg and Nel state Several recent books address norms

of masculinity, but there are too few such titles (Mickenberg 464). It is far more common and

accepted to see females with masculine traits than it is to see males with feminine traits. This is
 Berishaj 3

not only seen quantitatively, as Mickenberg and Nel mention, but qualitatively with how each

type of gender variance is showed in childrens literature. Diekman and Murnen also find

agreement in this which is represented in their research. This difference in equality and

acceptance is seen specifically when Diekman and Murnen compare sexist-labeled books with

non-sexist. The categories were based upon whether books stereotypically portrayed characters

gender in an (in)equal way (Diekman 376). While the sexist books had more sexism in regards to

females, both categories of books often found the same amount of sexism with males, showing a

lopsided improvement on the equality of gender in childrens literature (Diekman 380).

Essentially, one of the findings that Diekman and Murnen obtained was that nonsexist books

succeeded in portraying female characters as adopting the characteristics and roles identified

with the masculine gender role, but they did not portray male characters as adopting aspects of

the feminine gender role (Diekman 381). Furthermore, in the article Flowers, Dancing,

Dresses, and Dolls: Picture Book Representations of Gender-Variant Males, Katie Sciurba

focuses strictly on the imbalance gender-variant males face in literature. Along with the authors

of the two other articles, Sciurba places a large emphasis on the lack of gender-variant males, as

well as the lack of acceptance and progressivism these characters have (Sciurba 276).

Contrastingly to the other authors, Sciurba places an importance on how these books with

gender-variant males are not being progressive and/or equal at all. Sciurba fails to mention, and

therefore fails to agree, with the former authors acceptance of the increase in gender equality.

Sciurba finds that books challenging masculinity are not progressive in the way Mickenberg and

Nel seem to claim that they are (Sciurba 291). Rather than looking quantitatively at how often

males are gender variant, Sciurba finds that when paying particular attention to the meaning of

the stories and characters one will find that they are limited and do not allow for greater gender
 Berishaj 4

equality (Sciurba 291). Specifically, Sciurba mentions that the underlying message is that male

gender variance is fraught with shame and alienation (Sciurba 291). While Mickenberg and

Nel focus on how gender is presented in childrens literature, especially in relation to time

before, Sciurba focuses on the present and how progressive stories (specifically in terms of

gender-variant males) are not at the standards they should be, which labels them as inequal.

Diekman and Murnen seem to find the middle ground while offering explanation of this contrast

between the findings of these two articles.

Diekman and Murnen agree with the improvement of gender equality that Mickenberg

and Nel mention, but also agrees with Sciurba in the sense that even books labeled as non-sexist

still have a narrow vision of gender equality (Diekman 381). This can be explained by the

complexity of gender in childrens literature. Due to the complicated and extensive definition of

what makes a piece of literature sexist, it is difficult to truly obtain works that have an agreement

among all readers. A book could be viewed as nonsexist yet still contain sexist characters,

stories, norms, etc. (Diekman 381). The authors might disagree on whether childrens literature

truly does contain gender equality, yet there is still acceptance of the disparity between the

acceptance of gender-variant females and gender-variant males.

Methodology

The basis of these arguments and findings came about in different ways. Mickenberg and

Nel used literary analysis across a plethora of childrens literature, looking at how literature

represented gender, and therefore the equality of it (Mickenberg 445). Similarly, Sciurba used

literary analysis, yet only for 12 books that were claimed by customers on Amazon as being

progressive (Sciurba 280). Contrastingly, Diekman and Murnen used a sample of twenty books,

with half being regarded as sexist and the other half being regarded as non-sexist. Voluntary
 Berishaj 5

students were used to gather information by having them fill out a survey after reading the book,

which asked questions relating to gender (Diekman 376).

My methodology consists neither of large-scale literary analysis or surveys. I will be

going into a classroom of fifth graders where my interactions will lead me to a further

understanding of gender in childrens literature and childrens lives, but also how it is viewed

and affects children themselves. More specifically, interactions with children will occur through

activities revolving around Disneys Live Action Beauty and the Beast (2017) and the childrens

book Wonder, as well as observation and casual conversation to gain an insight into the lives of

children. To begin, the kids will participate in an activity where they are given a character and

must find the other characters that pertain to their story. The other main activities will be

comparing two characters from Beauty and the Beast and Wonder, and the making of a skit

incorporating the stories. Throughout the time of the research I will ask questions to the children

to gain specific insight on gender. These questions are: What if the gender of characters were

switched in either Beauty and the Beast or Wonder? What are qualities of the characters from the

two pieces (Belle, Auggie, Beast, etc.)? What character would you want to be and why? How

would you describe a boy/girl? In addition to this I will implement general everyday questions in

hopes of gaining more insight. This can range from asking the children what they dressed up for

as Halloween to what they want to be when they grow up.

Through the use of this methodology I hope to find that gender not only plays a large role

in childrens lives, but that there is an inequality between which genders can attain gender-

variance in a more socially acceptable way. I am looking to see that girls are more likely to be

praised and more comfortable with masculine traits than boys are with feminine traits.

Specifically, feminine traits consist of those with motherhood, fragility, and those generally
 Berishaj 6

associated with female roles while masculine traits consist of those with adventure, assertiveness,

and those expected of males. In relation to the activity I am expecting that the story will be told

with more masculine traits/viewpoints regardless of the gender of the character. Regarding the

questions being asked I am expecting the children to answer them in ways that show that

masculine traits are praised more than feminine traits (specifically for a male). For example, I

expect children will keep masculine traits when a male character becomes female, but there will

be the disregard of feminine traits when female characters become males. I am also expecting

that when describing the qualities of characters, females will use both feminine and masculine

traits, but males will only use masculine traits. For the question about which character the child

would want to be I am expecting girls to have better equality between male characters and

female characters picked, whereas I expect boys to mostly pick male characters (especially those

with pronounced masculine traits). I also expect similar answers to the everyday questions that

come about. Halloween costumes for boys will be far less feminine than females are masculine,

as well as the aspiring jobs of the children. I expect to see blatant comfort of masculine traits in

females and discomfort of feminine trait in males.

Discussion

While quantitative and qualitative analysis of childrens literature proves to be quite

concrete with data that is easily measured, interactions with and the observation of children

prove to be far more complicated, yet just as informational. I was unable to follow the

methodology precisely (especially with the questions I asked) due to the nature of this research

being natural and uncontrolled. I didn't want the children to make the answers forced, which

allowed for better information regarding gender and children to be at my disposal. With the

questions and methodology that did follow according to plan I quickly realized my expectations
 Berishaj 7

were both met and challenged due to the complexity of both human beings and the concept of

gender.

In regards to the notion that gender equality is prevalent, I found very mixed results,

especially when taking into account the comparison to older times. I did notice a fair amount of

gender equality in relation to the interactions between boys and girls. During recess, there was a

mixture of boys and girls who would play together. As well, during an activity of describing

qualities of the Beast character, there was both masculine and feminine traits given by both

genders. It would make sense to attribute this to our society progressing, and possibly even

accredit Mickenberg and Nel by also attributing this to childrens literature specifically

progressing.

Although, I did find many instances of sexism and inequality throughout the service

learning. My findings led me to believe this inequality between genders was showed in three

ways: the exclusion of the opposite gender (and therefore the preference of their own gender),

the dislike of the opposite gender, and the stigma between the separation of the genders (no

mixing of the two). The stigma between the separation of genders was seen in two major

instances. For one, during the first activity where kids received characters, a boy received Aurora

while a girl received Prince Philip. Many comments were made on how it was supposed to be the

other way around. Similar reactions were received upon my disclosure of my Halloween

costume: Dwayne The Rock Johnson. I was told with a look of disgust that it was a bad

costume because I am a girl and The Rock is a boy. Preference for their own gender showed

up when during the first activity, kids would first go to other kids of the same gender. As well,

agreement almost always occurred instinctually between the same gender. Both these instances

show this innateness of gender inequality because they do not think about it and just do.
 Berishaj 8

Preference of gender also made itself clear when the kids told me that they prefer to be friends

with their own gender. Yet the reasoning for this displays how children had distaste towards

other genders. Girls and boys would justify their choice by saying something negative about the

opposite gender, rather than something positive about their own gender. Specifically, girls were

called dramatic and boys were called annoying. This in itself was interesting because similar

traits were used to describe the opposite gender yet the word would correspond to the gender,

using a negative feminine trait for a female and negative masculine trait for males. A majority of

these sexist instances seem to show that they were learned. I assume that this learning comes

either from their surroundings (such as parents or friends), or their internal conclusions such as

those they get from literature. If a book were to show this clear division between gender and

create this binary aspect, then the children are expected to show it, which they do. Although, how

this relates to the past is an entirely more complex scenario. I feel it is safe to assume there has

been improvement, yet there is still inequality and sexism present.

While the concept of equality between genders was quite opaque, the difference between

acceptance of each gender variance was far clearer. For the most part, there was a greater

prevalence of girls with masculine traits compared to males with feminine traits. This was

essentially done in two ways: approval of masculine traits and disapproval of feminine traits.

During the activity I saw both the females and males have masculine characteristics through their

assertiveness. I also noticed the males, during an activity of making a skit, were very focused on

masculine traits such as violence, while the females remained somewhat indifferent. As well, the

males cared far more about which character they received (they had to play a male character)

while the females remained indifferent once again. Lastly, typically masculine jobs were

preferred by both males and females. One girl wanted to be a doctor while another girl wanted to
 Berishaj 9

be a list of these dangerous and adventurous jobs. The boys wanted to be engineers and football

players. The shunning of feminine traits was done equally as much. When asked what the Beast

would be like if he was a female it was greeted with impossibility and also said (by a boy) that

the Beast would be mean. As well, when asking the kids how they would react if they were in

Auggie's place and found out their friend was talking bad about them, the boys refused to say

they would cry and instead resorted to violence, while females owned up to it (most likely

because it is what females are expected to do). Furthermore, when a teacher hypothetically

placed a boy as the character of Belle, he was greeted with laughter, as well as continuous jokes

afterwards made by a male friend. Lastly, when the children were essentially gossiping, a boy

mentioned how he made fun of another boy because he had big lips and even called him Kylie.

I expect this imbalance comes from what children are told, specifically what literature tells them,

otherwise boys would not think to only stay in the realm of masculinity. This clear difference

between boys willingness to be gender-variant and females willingness must be attributed to an

outside source, and literature is a promising one. This is because evidence agrees that this is the

case in childrens literature, so it would make sense that this imbalance appears in childrens

lives as well.

For the most part, there was a clear division between how gender-variance and the

different traits were greeted. The biggest contradiction occurs when the kids were describing

qualities about the Beast and Auggie where boys actually used feminine traits as much as the

females did, saying they were nice, lonely, sensitive, wanted love, etc. I was not

expecting this to occur but I theorize that it is because the feminine and masculine traits are not

being directly associated with the child them self. A boy might only do and say masculine things

because those actions are directly related to him, but when he is talking about another person the
 Berishaj 10

feminine traits are now associated with a completely different person, so there is freedom to be

show variance without society reprimanding.

Conclusion

The information gathered from the children proves to be far more complex than the

information gathered from the scholarly articles. One explanation of this is the fact that children

are not as concrete as literature. With a piece of literature you are able to see all that it offers, yet

with children they could react one way to something and react a completely different way to

something similar. A lot of implications must be done as well. Often, I had to ask myself if a

child was doing something because of gender norms or if they were simply doing it for unrelated

reasons. Another large complication was the sample size. While I had the entire 5th grade to

gather information from, most of my in-depth analysis and research came from my activity group

which only contained 6 children with two of them being female. The idea of going to other

groups to gain more insight also did not appeal because I would not have been able to go as in-

depth. There was this trade-off between quantity and quality that would have to be fixed for

future research, which would require a great more deal of time. The greatest complication of all

is actually what authors Diekman and Murnen shed light on in regards to literature being

nonsexist yet having sexist qualities due to the complicated definition of what makes something

sexist or not. A child could challenge gender norms yet still do something that is considered

sexist. The importance of gender in childrens literature is that there are many layers to it which

are all needed for an extensive understanding.

 Berishaj 11

Works Cited

Diekman, Amanda B., and Sarah K. Murnen. Learning to Be Little Women and Little Men: The

Inequitable Gender Equality of Nonsexist Childrens Literature. Sex Roles, vol. 50, no.

5-6, Mar. 2004, pp. 373385. SpringerLink, doi:10.1023/B:SERS.0000018892.26527.ea.

Mickenberg, Julia L., and Philip Nel. Radical Children's Literature Now! Children's Literature

Association Quarterly, vol. 36, no. 4, 2011, pp. 445473. Project MUSE,

doi:10.1353/chq.2011.0040.

Sciurba, Katie. Flowers, Dancing, Dresses, and Dolls: Picture Book Representations of Gender-

Variant Males. Children's Literature in Education, vol. 48, no. 3, Sept. 2017, pp. 276

293. SpringerLink, doi:10.1007/s10583-016-9296-0.