Dear Usborne
I liked you, I really did. Ever since I discovered your excellent, illustrated science books in the library of my primary school. But we have to talk. We can't go on like this.
In WH Smith's yesterday lunchtime I was browsing the children's book aisle (because who can have enough bathtime books about fish?) and was taken aback by this display:
can you see that? let's zoom in a little to a selection of the possible characters:
Do you really think that girls are concerned only with being fairies or bridesmaids or princesses? (or movie / pop stars - both occupations heavily predicated on looks, at least in the case of women.) That they are less able to imagine themselves pirates, explorers, action heroes, Romans? and, if so, don't you think that maybe your presentation of these roles as solely the purview of men contributes to that?
For that matter, do you think my son cannot (or should not? is that the implication?) imagine himself a dancer?
I don't doubt you'll say that little girls do like dressing up or imagining themselves princesses and fairies and brides - and I don't doubt that that's true. But the question is why? I mean, if they're relentlessly fed a diet of a certain set of acceptable shapes, are they really free to think of themselves outside that? And what of the girl who wants to be an astronaut - yet everything she sees tells her this is for boys and men, not for people like her.
I wanted to give Usborne the benefit of the doubt, in case I had just visited a particularly reactionary WH Smiths, so I checked out the website - and sure, there's a "Dream Jobs" sticker book that contains female editors, forensic scientists and the like, but this makes up just two titles out of twenty eight in the series. And this is a series that includes "Shopping Girls" as a thing and manages to find material for three titles from weddings and bridesmaids. It smacks of tokenism and a cheap reliance on using PINK! to make easy sales.
Obviously you believe in the power of books to shape ideas and fire up the imagination, right?
That just makes it sadder that, rather than feeding and freeing children's imaginations with these books, you're forcing them into a limited set of 'boy' and 'girl' shaped boxes and binding them up tightly.
My kid is only a year old and I am already so tired of this.
Can't we do better?
Yours,
A Mother, Reader and Ex-Little Girl
I liked you, I really did. Ever since I discovered your excellent, illustrated science books in the library of my primary school. But we have to talk. We can't go on like this.
In WH Smith's yesterday lunchtime I was browsing the children's book aisle (because who can have enough bathtime books about fish?) and was taken aback by this display:
 |
| wow. I wonder which shelf is aimed at girls and which at boys? it will surprise possibly nobody to know that the cover characters on each book on the top shelf were women, those on the bottom shelf, without fail, men. I mean, seriously. This is 2013 not 1983. |
 |
| weddings and bridesmaids // movie stars // sports girls and dancers // princesses and fairies |
 |
| pirates and long ago people // explorers // romans // action heroes |
Don't you think that this kind of hackneyed gender stereotyping of children is getting old? Also: stupid, sexist, lazy and irresponsible.
Do you really think that girls are concerned only with being fairies or bridesmaids or princesses? (or movie / pop stars - both occupations heavily predicated on looks, at least in the case of women.) That they are less able to imagine themselves pirates, explorers, action heroes, Romans? and, if so, don't you think that maybe your presentation of these roles as solely the purview of men contributes to that?
For that matter, do you think my son cannot (or should not? is that the implication?) imagine himself a dancer?
I don't doubt you'll say that little girls do like dressing up or imagining themselves princesses and fairies and brides - and I don't doubt that that's true. But the question is why? I mean, if they're relentlessly fed a diet of a certain set of acceptable shapes, are they really free to think of themselves outside that? And what of the girl who wants to be an astronaut - yet everything she sees tells her this is for boys and men, not for people like her.
I wanted to give Usborne the benefit of the doubt, in case I had just visited a particularly reactionary WH Smiths, so I checked out the website - and sure, there's a "Dream Jobs" sticker book that contains female editors, forensic scientists and the like, but this makes up just two titles out of twenty eight in the series. And this is a series that includes "Shopping Girls" as a thing and manages to find material for three titles from weddings and bridesmaids. It smacks of tokenism and a cheap reliance on using PINK! to make easy sales.
Obviously you believe in the power of books to shape ideas and fire up the imagination, right?
That just makes it sadder that, rather than feeding and freeing children's imaginations with these books, you're forcing them into a limited set of 'boy' and 'girl' shaped boxes and binding them up tightly.
My kid is only a year old and I am already so tired of this.
Can't we do better?
Yours,
A Mother, Reader and Ex-Little Girl
I am so shocked by this! I always loved Usborne as a child as well. Well, now I'm grownup (and still haven't found a job as a princess or fairy - apparently that's all I'm good for) I find this stereotyping completely unacceptable. Good on you for raising it!
ReplyDeleteMy hopes of being a career bridesmaid were dashed by my friends being selfish enough to only get married the once if at all. It's an irregular line of work at best ;)
DeleteUgh. This is so disappointing. I loved Usborne books when I was a kid. I would have enjoyed all the 'boy' books far more when I was little and I was still a girly girl in other ways. Totally agree with you, stupid, sexist, lazy and irresponsible, you should write to them!
ReplyDeleteThanks Josie - I did write and just received an email response, which I think I'll share tomorrow.
DeleteI wish I was shocked but I'm not. This nonsense has become so rampant it's hard to even be surprised anymore (but I have a six year old girl so I guess maybe I've just been dealing with it for a while now). It just adds an extra element to thoughtful parenting, one more battle to fight on our kids' behalf. I do get a thrill when my daughter selects things like "Puppetry and Improv" from the afterschool activities list over "Cheer and Baton Twirling." Makes me feel like I'm doing something right - although if she truly wanted to do cheer and baton I would never ever ever discourage from that either. Always walking a line.
ReplyDeleteHi Jenni - thanks for commenting. You make an excellent point about encouraging what they want to pursue even if this does seem to play into the gender stereotypes. Walking a line indeed :)
DeleteIts depressing isn't it? I have two girls and no matter what i say to people (don't buy pink for starters) they mainly ignore you.
ReplyDeleteI go out of my way to not do stereotypically girlie stuff or surround them with pink princess fairy crap.
Fine if when they choose this stuff i will go along with it but like you I think alot of it starts with what is thrust at as by marketing etc so at least if they do want to be a bulletin etc it will be their choice (to an extent) not because its all they know.
It is a bit depressing.. I guess I'm surprised because as a newish parent I thought things would have moved on by now!
DeleteAs a mother, and as an author/illustrator this makes me so angry. When all this crap is being published so easily there are so many more beautiful and intelligent picture books not being bought by these large companies for fears they are not 'easy sellers' or that they are too sophisticated for little kids tastes. Pah, poor kids are more sophisticated than people want to give them credit for.
ReplyDeleteRecently on twitter there was uproar as harrods (which had recently re-vamped it's toy store as gender neutral) stocked similar books on being pretty aimed at girls and being clever aimed at boys published by scholastic. The back lash was so large they removed the books...
Oh and hello by the way! New reader popped over from tigerlilyquinn's blog!
Hi Sarah, thanks for stopping by and for commenting!
DeleteI do love your blog and it is really great to hear your perspective as someone who works in the area.
There just seems to be a vicious cycle where it's easy to sell crap that's easy to sell because that's what's selling (or something) and very little appetite to change this or take more 'risks'. I saw the Harrods row - there clearly is a massive dissatisfaction with this type of nonsense!
- Patricia