The Independent won't review gender-specific children books

[Michael Hardner]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/genderspecific-books-demean-all-our-children-so-the-independent-on-sunday-will-no-longer-review-anything-marketed-to-exclude-either-sex-9194694.html

Sugar and spice and all things nice, that’s what little girls are made of. And boys? They’re made of trucks and trains and aeroplanes, building blocks, chemistry experiments, sword fights and guns, football, cricket, running and jumping, adventure and ideas, games, farts and snot, and pretty much anything else they can think of. At least, that’s the impression that children are increasingly given by the very books that are supposed to broaden their horizons.

Happily, as the literary editor of The Independent on Sunday, there is something that I can do about this. So I promise now that the newspaper and this website will not be reviewing any book which is explicitly aimed at just girls, or just boys.

This is fascinating to me, as I didn't realize that they still engaged in this type of gender exclusive marketing. I think this is the choice of the publishers, to dismiss this kind of depreciated viewpoint by book marketers, but there appears to be a good amount of outrage, such as "When do we start burning books? Where do we get the uniforms and armbands?" which appears in the comments section of the article.

[TimG]

This is fascinating to me, as I didn't realize that they still engaged in this type of gender exclusive marketing. I think this is the choice of the publishers, to dismiss this kind of depreciated viewpoint by book marketers, but there appears to be a good amount of outrage.

Why stop at kids? Lets boycott all fiction which is obviously targeted at one gender or another. Twilight and Harlequin romances should be be consigned to the dust bin for their gender specific target audience.

Of course, there is the argument that getting boys to read is tough enough as it is and books that attract young boys are an extremely good thing. But guess the Independent is more interested in political correctness than finding good books that would encourage boys to put down their game consoles.

On the whole it is ridiculous to prejudge the quality of a book simply by its target audience (other than to say 'I not interested because it is not targeted at my interests' - but book reviewers arn't supposed to do that)

Edited March 23, 2014 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Why stop at kids? Lets boycott all fiction which is obviously targeted at one gender or another. Twilight and Harlequin romances should be be consigned to the dust bin for their gender specific target audience.

Well, they don't generally review fiction targeted at genders, because let's face it... why would anybody review a Harlequin romance.

Of course, there is the argument that getting boys to read is tough enough as it is and books that attract young boys are an extremely good thing. But guess the Independent is more interested in political correctness than finding good books that would encourage boys to put down their game consoles.

I think she puts forward a case that it's just a bad idea. If you want to hang the hoary 'PC' tag on it, though, feel free.

On the whole it is ridiculous to prejudge the quality of a book simply by its target audience (other than to say 'I not interested because it is not targeted at my interests')

You're mischaracterizing it - the book isn't going to be 'judged' ie. reviewed at all.

[Argus]

This is simply another precious, politically correct effort to pretend there is no difference between boys and girls other than the physical. It's nonsense. It's peurile and ignorant. We should have no books about football players, cowboys and firefighters? No books about spaceships?

In terms of young adults, boys like sports and adventure. Girls like romance. Sometimes there's some adventure to girls romance books, and there's often a girl or two in the boys adventure books, but these books do not appeal to both genders equally, never have, and never will. Writing them all off as somehow harmful is nothing but politicaly motivated posturing.

Edited March 23, 2014 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

This is simply another precious, politically correct effort to pretend there is no difference between boys and girls other than the physical. It's nonsense.

Well, other than the part of this sentence that merely tags this initiative as PC, the point is addressed in the link.

It's peurile and ignorant. ... No books about spaceships?

In a single sentence you decry ignorance (again, see the original link) and declare books about spaceships to be for boys, apparently.

[TimG]

Well, they don't generally review fiction targeted at genders, because let's face it... why would anybody review a Harlequin romance.

Harlequin romances are also a formula fiction. They would not get reviewed because they are not intended to be original. But Twilight is a good example of a young adult book that was targeted at girls. According to the Independent they would refuse to review such books.

I think she puts forward a case that it's just a bad idea. If you want to hang the hoary 'PC' tag on it, though, feel free.

It is a bad idea to give boys reading material that they want to read? I did not realize she was an advocate of illiteracy.

Aside: I read the article and it does not really make sense. She starts by quibbling about marketing categories (for boys or for girls) which suggests that any content is acceptable as long as it is not labelled as 'for boys' or 'for girls'. She then talks about 'books which demeaned one sex or the other' but that has nothing to do with whether the book is targeted at boys or girls. It is really not clear what she means.

You're mischaracterizing it - the book isn't going to be 'judged' ie. reviewed at all.

You need to get a dictionary. Deciding which books to review IS judging.

As a private business the Independent is free to use whatever guidelines that they want to appeal to their readers. My arguments are only about whether such a stance should be considered reasonable outside of the business needs of the Independent.

Edited March 23, 2014 by TimG

[Argus]

Well, other than the part of this sentence that merely tags this initiative as PC, the point is addressed in the link.

In a single sentence you decry ignorance (again, see the original link) and declare books about spaceships to be for boys, apparently.

I was a huge reader growing up. Still am. I'm not suggesting there aren't certain books and series which appeal to both genders. I used to read Enid Blyton, for example, which did that well. The Harry Potter series is another. However, if you write a story about cowboys (or space ships) you can expect almost your entire audience to be boys.

Booked aimed at women/girls tend to have a lot of stuff about relationships, problems with friends, boyfriends, co-workers, sometimes as principal plot, or often as sub-plots. Boys and girls think differently and prefer different situations. As an example, group cooperation on things in schools appeals to girls. Boys have a stronger tendency to be challenged by competition. It's a different mindset, and so different kinds of stories appeal to boys and girls, men and women.

[The_Squid]

The article talks about children's books, but the author uses Hunger Games, Twilight and Harry Potter as examples.... None of which are children's books.

The article also says that there is no evidence of innate differences between boys and girls "enthusiasms". Then the article says that the differences in enthusiasms are social constructs. So there are differences in reality. Why doesn't really matter.

Poorly thought out article...

Edited March 23, 2014 by The_Squid

[cybercoma]

I didn't realize that I was advocating a ban on movies, music, television, books, and video games by not writing reviews of them. I better take the comments from that article and rethink my life.

[The_Squid]

I didn't realize that I was advocating a ban on movies, music, television, books, and video games by not writing reviews of them. I better take the comments from that article and rethink my life.

Yes, some folks get a little hyperbolic in their arguments.

[TimG]

I didn't realize that I was advocating a ban on movies, music, television, books, and video games by not writing reviews of them.

I find your willful blindness to the objectives of an advocate to be quite ridiculous. In this case if the person was not simply making a personal choice she would not be telling the world about it. She is telling the world about it only because she wants other people to validate her choice by making the same choice. IOW - her end game is a market boycott of books she disapproves of. If that was not her end game she would never have written a column suggesting that her decision is the only reasonable position on the question.

Frankly, your kind of response to a discussion is intellectually dishonest. I mention it because it is a pattern for you.

Edited March 23, 2014 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Harlequin romances are also a formula fiction. They would not get reviewed because they are not intended to be original. But Twilight is a good example of a young adult book that was targeted at girls. According to the Independent they would refuse to review such books.

They gave a pretty straight line of what would be accepted in the article. Do you know for a fact that Twilight wouldn't be reviewed because it seems to me that they would.

She then talks about 'books which demeaned one sex or the other' but that has nothing to do with whether the book is targeted at boys or girls. It is really not clear what she means.

Yes, she indicates that targeting demeans both sexes.

[Michael Hardner]

... if you write a story about cowboys (or space ships) you can expect almost your entire audience to be boys.

Maybe... but it's not exclusionary to write such books per se.

Boys and girls think differently and prefer different situations.

...and much of this is socialized, as we can see why.

[Michael Hardner]

The article also says that there is no evidence of innate differences between boys and girls "enthusiasms". Then the article says that the differences in enthusiasms are social constructs. So there are differences in reality. Why doesn't really matter.

I think they're saying that why does matter, which is why they're taking the action. Why do you think that socialized differences don't matter ?

[TimG]

Do you know for a fact that Twilight wouldn't be reviewed because it seems to me that they would.

Well if it is acceptable then she has no idea of what it means to 'target a demographic' because everything about Twilight is designed to appeal to teen-aged girls. If it is acceptable then she has no principal behind her argument and is just making crap up to suit whatever prejudices she has in her head.

Yes, she indicates that targeting demeans both sexes.

Is she talking about he marketing or the content of the books? That is what is not clear. If she is whinging about the marketing then it is a pretty silly thing to get worked up about. If she is talking about the content she provided no arguments to support such as grand assertion. I am assuming she is talking about the content. Edited March 23, 2014 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Read it again - it's clear that they are talking about tagging on the book itself.

[WestCoastRunner]

We should have no books about football players, cowboys and firefighters? No books about spaceships?

In terms of young adults, boys like sports and adventure. Girls like romance. Sometimes there's some adventure to girls romance books, and there's often a girl or two in the boys adventure books, but these books do not appeal to both genders equally, never have, and never will. Writing them all off as somehow harmful is nothing but politicaly motivated posturing.

No one is saying there should no books about football players, cowboys, firefighters and spaceships. Last I looked, there were females participating in all of these activities.

Girls like romance? You make it sound like girls only like romance. Don't girls also like sports and adventure and I'm sure there are some boys/men who like to romance their girlfriends/wives/partners.

When my daughters were growing up, I refused to buy them those magazines that focus on their looks, weight, makeup, how to get a man etc. And I believe they are the better for it and so are their husbands/boyfriends. As a man, would you not want your partner to be more enlightened about the world instead of just looking better?

To say that this is being politically correct is just wrong. This has more to do with raising children to rise to their highest potential. We owe that to our children.

[WestCoastRunner]

If it is acceptable then she has no principal behind her argument and is just making crap up to suit whatever prejudices she has in her head.

You don't get to become a literary editor of The Independent On Sunday by making up crap.

[TimG]

You don't get to become a literary editor of The Independent On Sunday by making up crap.

You have a higher opinion of journalists than I.

[TimG]

Read it again - it's clear that they are talking about tagging on the book itself.

Then why is it worth discussing?

More importantly, your initial post mentions negative comments which were most likely by people thinking the article is talking about the content - not the marketing. So the real issue is a poorly written article that does not make it clear what the issue is and why people should care about it.

Edited March 23, 2014 by TimG

[WestCoastRunner]

We can take it one step further and point to research about gender-type toys for example:

Professor Blakemore: If you want to develop children's physical, cognitive, academic, musical, and artistic skills, toys that are not strongly gender-typed are more likely to do this.

What message about toys do you think families of young children could take from your research?

Professor Blakemore: For parents, it’s the same message as for teachers: Strongly gender-typed toys might encourage attributes that aren’t ones you actually want to foster. For girls, this would include a focus on attractiveness and appearance, perhaps leading to a message that this is the most important thing—to look pretty. For boys, the emphasis on violence and aggression (weapons, fighting, and aggression) might be less than desirable in the long run.

Also, moderately masculine toys have many positive qualities (spatial skills, science, building things, etc.) that parents might want to encourage in both boys and girls. Perhaps, to some extent, it is the same for some moderately feminine toys (nurturance, care for infants, developing skills in cooking and housework).

What's the most surprising thing you think your research tells us about children, toys, and play?

Professor Blakemore: I am not sure how surprising this is to me but it might be to parents: Moderately masculine toys encourage children's physical, cognitive, academic, musical, and artistic skills more so than moderately feminine ones.

I realize these are referring to toys but I think the same can be said for books. Children should have a choice what they want to read and they shouldn't be marketed towards one gender and not the other.

http://www.naeyc.org/content/what-research-says-gender-typed-toys

[Michael Hardner]

Then why is it worth discussing?

More importantly, your initial post mentions negative comments which were most likely by people thinking the article is talking about the content - not the marketing. So the real issue is a poorly written article that does not make it clear what the issue is and why people should care about it.

I think it's pretty clear - the comments I read talk about other things.

[WestCoastRunner]

I agree that there is confusion about the article and what the message is. What I believe she is trying to communicate is that books should not be marketed specifically at boys or girls. Children don't fit neatly into these boy/girl boxes. This whole campaign is about letting the books speak for themselves and not labelling which gender should read them. We don't need books with pink covers and blue covers and book sellers having girls and boys sections.

[Argus]

Maybe... but it's not exclusionary to write such books per se.

...and much of this is socialized, as we can see why.

How do you know what is socialized? Don't we often enough hear about people growing up in male bodies who were never comfortable, never felt like a male, never liked the things males like, always preferred female things, and vice versa?

[WestCoastRunner]

There is much research on socialized behaviours. Do we need to cite research studies? Seriously?