Binary gender systems are constructed. They rely on the repetition of dominant narratives via psychology, music, popular culture, film and of course children's books. This gem comes from a children's book called, "I'm Glad I'm a Boy! I'm Glad I'm a Girl! It is from the 1950's and I almost appreciate how blatantly obvious it is, since there is no question what it is trying to do. Gender-based messaging is much more subtle and nuanced these days.
You can see the whole book here. I am very glad no one read this book to me as a child, I probably would have set it on fire.
Whenever I see vintage sexism now all I can think of is Mad Men.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Vintage Sexism: I'm Glad I'm a Boy! I'm Glad I'm a Girl!.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13395
Since when has vintage sexism advocated that women use the barbeque? It must also have been the most boring book to have read to you as a child. I mean, who wants their parents to read them a list at bedtime?
The book is from a belief that the sexes were each meant to have their own set of roles in society that complimented one another. Too bad the roles were limiting, patronizing, and only worked if you were in a heterosexual couple. Sucked to be the single people out there, or the non-hets, or the widow/ers.
Spare yourself from the comments sections of the original blog. I didn't and now I can't scrub many of them from my brain. They are about 50/50 reasonable people to whackjobs, but it's enough.
I love the juxtaposition of "Boys can eat" with "Girls can cook". God forbid girls actually EAT.
They are pretty clearly trying to set up a "Boy and Girls are both part of a whole, and rely on each other" pairing, where both boys and girls have roles, but both are useful/valuable. I do not think they are trying to suggest that girls should not eat, anymore than they are suggesting that boys should not use inventions. The "women can cook" is just setting up "men depend on women" as a premise.
You really think the root of our problem with this book is that it's gone over our heads, Brian?
My comment should show as a response to another comment, and not to the book in general, so I am unsure why you would suppose that I think this. Certainly re-reading my comment, I am unable to guess why.
Then let me give you a hint: Because instead of acknowledging both wavesandmoon's fully functional mind and the patently oversimplified absurdity of "Boys can eat"/"Girls can cook," you decided to play Captain Obvious about the structure of the book and the message the author intended, as if it were really possible that you were telling wavesandmoon something she didn't already know. We've seen the "patiently literal" act around here before. Subtly intimating to people that their own instincts are not to be trusted, whereas you must know your stuff because you're oh so reserved in your judgements and never ever use contractions, isn't as impressive as you might think.
In other words, please watch your tone.
I am not asserting that I must know my stuff, but presenting my interpretation, which does contradict what wavesandmoon seems to be saying. If you disagree with someone, and it is not obvious where, it makes sense to me to start at the beginning. To do otherwise usually means everyone just talks past each other. There is not much value in that.
And yes, I have reactionary internet grammar. I cannot imagine how the effect is that I come off as anything other than stiff and awkward, though you can take it how you like. And yes, I do not have much interest in making moral judgements. I am (more or less) just interested in understanding the ideas discussed. If you think there is some flaw in my understanding (or incompleteness, which one might not call a flaw, I suppose), I would be interested to hear what it is. But I am not really sure what to do with just being told off for saying/doing things I can not read into what I have said.
So you really thought that wavesandmoon really thought that the book's author really thought that girls are unable to eat, or shouldn't.
No offense, but I'd think that who takes such a benign interest in communication and "understanding" as you claim to wouldn't have made that inference.
Of course, if the cognitive dissonance was genuinely yours -- and not deliberate and meant to look all scrupulously fair-minded in the face of wavesandmoon (and, by extention, the rest of us silly girls) getting all carried away -- you could always acknowledge that.
Your comment did seem intentionally patronizing.
Yes, I gather that, though I am not really sure why. I am aware that I am pretty terrible at anticipating reactions to my style, especially in intellectual exchanges with disagreements. It seems to me if two peoples' analysis diverge at some point, it makes sense to start at the beginning and walk forward until your paths fork, but others might disagree.
Truth be told, I am vaguely aware of how people often misinterpret my style of argument objection, but I do not really get why (nor can I distinguish it from how other people speak/write). It would be nice if someone could explain it to me, but if I can not figure it out, it is probably unrealistic to think anyone else would.
But I still do not see it carrying the message that girls do not/should not eat. Especially given the context(s).
"But I still do not see it carrying the message that girls do not/should not eat. Especially given the context(s)."
The original comment wasn't meant to be taken completely literally. It was a joke.
I mean, yes, the original comment was playing off of the unfortunate tendency in our society to shame girls for eating, but yeah, it was a joke. I laughed at least. :)
Huh. Maybe I just do not get it.
Well, I was doing exactly what Punchbuggy Green said - playing off society's tendency to shame girls for having the audacity to actually eat.
Of course I understood that the book was setting up a "girls and boys need each other" premise. I think that's entirely problematic anyway, for reasons that shouldn't need articulating. But because the sexism and heteronormativity of the book was so in-your-face obvious, I cracked a joke. It clearly went over your head, but I can assure you that the point of the book did not go over mine.
Also, just so you know, your comment read as defending the book. This is possibly not the smartest thing to do on a feminist forum.
I'm glad you (and probably 29+ other people) saw what I was doing there! *laughs*
Psh, girls use what boys invent? Yes. What a useful and valuable skill!!
The "women can cook" is just setting up "men depend on women" as a premise. Wow, SERIOUSLY? And you don't take issue with this?
Yes boys and girls are both "part of a whole" like you say. Boys are doctors, girls are nurses. Boys are pilots, girls are stewardesses. Boys are presidents, girls are first ladies. The only point is to teach that they depend on each other. Yeah, RIGHT.
" The "women can cook" is just setting up "men depend on women" as a premise."
((eye roll)) Are you seriously claiming that thhis book is just as sexist to the boy as it is to the girl?
" The "women can cook" is just setting up "men depend on women" as a premise."
((eye roll)) Are you seriously claiming that thhis book is just as sexist to the boy as it is to the girl? Or even (gasp) that its only sexist to the boy? Sooo, surprising a guy would make this observation.
I have not made any claims remotely like that. But please feel free to make assumptions about what I am likely to think based on my gender.
As a matter of, it should be fairly clear that setting strong gender roles necessarily results in sexist treatment of all genders. If I am being overly pedantic, the sexism is probably a zero-sum game, so they each have to experience an equal "amount" of sexism, though one could be more negative or positive than the other (and here the girl's role is almost certainly more negative in the comic overall, though how one values cooking vs. inventing might vary, I do not know about that one).
WTF?
I see nothing wrong with Brian's comment. I wonder if his name had been "Sue" if some of you would have judged the comments the same. I tried to go back and see your points, and it's totally benign.
Um, Brian... it's kinda clear that the guy who wrote this book (and the school districts that paid for it and put it in the curriculum) believe that men and women have different roles AND THAT FEMALE ROLES ARE SUBORDINATE TO THE MALE ONES.
That whole "boys eat/girls cook" thing is a hint.
And the "boys are pilots/girls are stewardesses" thing is an even bigger hint - remember, the pilot flies the plane, the flight attendant takes care of the passengers...you can fly a plane with pilots but no flight attendants, but with flight attendants but no pilots, it's not gonna happen.
Up and down the line, the author lets little kids know that boys are different than and superior to girls.
You may not remember, but when I was a kid (mid 1970's) there was this anti racist children's song "you have to be carefully taught".
It was about how kids have to be systematically indoctrinated by racist adults to be racist - because children do not naturally come to racist conclusions on their own.
The same applies to sexism.
And this book is a great example of carefully teaching boys to be sexist - and girls to accept a lesser, subordinate role in society.
Books like these remind me just how hard my mom's generation had to work just to let me major in engineering now!
thanks mom
This was presented in one of my high school classes, I think a psych class. The teacher claimed people actually read it to their kids into the 70s.
I looked at the link with all the pages-- I'm surprised by the one that says boys are heroes, girls are heroines. I thought it was going to say girls get rescued or something like that.
Wow, nice find! This is amazing. The only couplet that's even remotely positive would be the "boys are heroes, girls are heroines" but there's still this stark contrast of the Boy slaying a dragon & the Girl saving her family from Vaguely Native American dudes. I guess it says "ladies, you can do cool things too, but only if they involve the fruit of your loins & apocryphal stereotypes!"
An extension of the Freudian concept that was oh so popular in the 50's that entailed 'anatomy is destiny (at least or females).'
Bah! So obnoxious. I volunteered at a local elementary school, and by the kindergarten classroom they were displaying kid's art about "I like being a girl because..." or "I like being a boy because..."
Though most of them were very traditionally gendered ("I like being a boy because I can play with trucks"), some were not. I'm pretty sure I saw a "I like being a girl because I can do anything." Rock on!!!
I remember having to do a similar exercise in 1st grade. To be honest I probably put things like "Because I can wear earrings" and things like that. Can you blame a child for not questioning these things? I don't know. I don't really know what the point of such an exercise is, though. Any education majors/teachers want to chime in? I'd guess it would be to reinforce the gender binary, not to question it.
Gross. My daughter's class did a similar project, but it was a much better "I like being me because..."
If girls are cum dumpsters, then what are boys?
Trolls.
jizz dispensers
I remember that poster as a child! God, that pissed me off so much.
I use Mad Men a lot when talking about feminism. When I fail to convice people of its use, I say: "just rent Mad Men". I swear, it works! People have come back to me saying "was it really THAT bad"?
I thinks it is a great, entertaining way to prove your point. Plus, it shows gorgeous, normal-size women!
That's an excellent show to use as an example, and I say this as someone who's only seen one episode of the show. It was just too painful to watch. I think every single scene had some kind of extreme sexism in it, and many had blatant anti-Semitism. I think about what my mother had to go through in those days, and it makes me want to cry.
I think that it shows very clearly that all characters are unhappy and how they could all benefit from a revolution.
Keep on watching, Kathleen, not only for the terrific story and wonferfully humane characters, but also because as painful as it is, it's also verry reassuring. What a long way we've come! And how bad do we need to be aware of it, so we won't ge back!
That's awful. At least girls are heroines, not damsels in distress. That's about the only positive thing I can say.
I know! I kind of loved those two panels, despite myself. Like, I'd buy a book of just that.
I love that the least sexist one is racist instead.
The comments are also alternately cracking me up and making my blood boil ("Sorry, ladies, but this is the way it used to be in the good old days before your PC Gloria Steinem bullshit got off the ground!") My favorite so far: "This is kind of sexist." Gold star!
Did anyone else think of the primaries when they saw men are presidents and women are first ladies?
... I don't think we'll get a woman president until we can figure out what to call her husband ( let's be real, she'd have to be legally married, which leaves out the queers)
First Partner.
or...
Partner to the President.
Does "First Man" sound too much like "Best Man"?
Though if a president's wife is the "First Lady", and it's "Ladies and Gentlemen", wouldn't a president's husband be "First Gentleman"?
First Gentleman. Gentleman being the same as Lady.
Daniel Granholm Mulhern, the husband of Michigan Governer Jennifer Granholm, chose to be called the first gentleman. He explains his choice here: http://www.michigan.gov/firstgentleman/0,1607,7-178--93431--,00.html
First Gentleman?
Didn't this author know -- girls can't barbecue? BBQ is MANLY FOOD! FIRE! MEAT! Girls make salads and casseroles or something. :)
That reminds me of an episode of King of the Hill. Hank didn't want Bobby cooking but then had him learn to BBQ. He asked why and Hank said "It's not cooking, it's BBQ."
Hank may be a good man but he still needs some work.
The lamp that boy invented looks faulty.
I rarely do this on blogs, but LOL.
the book is actually pretty interesting for the tone and position it takes. The title page says it was published in 1970 - a transitional time. the book is trying really hard to straddle a primitive egalitarianism and narrowly defined pink-collar stereotypes. it tries to legitimate "Boys are doctors, Girls are nurses" by padding it with factual, semi-egalitarian statements - "Boys are fathers, Girls are mothers." The heroine page even gestures at some idea of female empowerment (through Manifest Destiny, apparently - not so great).
Anyone who argues that this stuff is innocuous is ignoring countless studies demonstrating the effects of reading material and gender role lessons on kids. If I'd grown up with this message coming at me from all sides, even my picture books, what are the chances I'd be a girl doctor?
This book was on Jezebel, it's a parody written by a woman.
No, it's not. Whitney Darrow was a man, a cartoonist for the New Yorker, who often did satirical work. This was a children's book he wrote, which doesn't seem the least bit satirical, but meant sincerely.
Plus, whether it was meant satirically or not, it was certainly taken perfectly seriously by plenty of parents/educators/trendy early-seventies child psychologists.
http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/04/02/boys-fix-things-girls-need-things-fixed/
That is not what the Jezebel entry said, it's what a few commenters claimed. Darrow was male, and although he did political cartoons he also illustrated several children's books.
Actually, I think you could have a lot of fun with this formula.
"Boys are on top.
Girls are on bottom.
Boys fart.
Girls queef.
Boys use steroids.
Girls use laxatives."
... and so on and so forth.
Except everything you wrote is BS and not funny.
Well then , you come up with some.
Boys and girls and people who are neither boys nor girls can do anything they like. Not funny, but true.
I thought it was funny as long as youre not being a troll.
....boys sweat
girls glisten
boys wear pants
girls wear dreses
boy conquer the world
girls subsist under his tyranny, ect
Oh good heavens, I'm not a troll. I love this blog and everything it stands for. I meant for my post to come off as snarky and tongue-in-cheek, and I'm sorry if it didn't come through that way..
Boys see proctologists.
Girls see gynecologists.
Boys poop poop.
Girls poop rainbows and sunshine.
Boys can go to work after having kids.
Girls can't. Sorry.
I wear pants and my husband borrows my skirts.
I had a teacher who actually told us boys sweat, girls perspire.
I heard it as:
Horses sweat.
Men perspire.
Women glow.
*I just got back from a run and am definitely NOT "glowing"*
Girls do not queef as alternative to farting. Girls fart AND queef, boys just fart.
I know. I was just playing on the fact that some guys refuse to acknowledge that girls fart.
"I am very glad no one read this book to me as a child, I probably would have set it on fire. "
Second that!
No no no. Boys set fires. Girls use those fires to cook food. Get it right people!
/snark
There's more information and a fairly interesting discussion about it here:
http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/04/02/boys-fix-things-girls-need-things-fixed/
It was published around 1969 and it's unclear whether or not it was written as satire. The problem is that it was not RECEIVED as satire. From the comments section linked above:
I’m not sure it was satire — it doesn’t seem to have been pitched that way.
From School Libraries published by the American Association of School Libraries, 1969: “This warmly humorous book makes everybody glad they are what they are.”
From The Horn Book Magazine, 1970: “He’s glad he’s a boy and she’s glad she’s a girl. In this warmly humorous book, they tell each other why and conclude that the best reason of all is — because they need each other!”
From the “Books for Children” section in Childhood Education, 1970: “Simple drawings with line captions designed to help the young child discover his or her appropriate sex role.”
I heard it was from the 60s and from the 70s as well. When is it really? (Does someone have access to the book to check the publication date?)
I looked at the Amazon page, it says 1970.
Going along with the sexism book, I half expected the "boys are fathers" to be the boy sitting at the TV with a cola in one hand and remote in the other as the "kid" dolls played monopoly, or something along the lines of the vintage battleship game box. I would be rather pissed if I saw that.
How is that a stereotype?
"I half expected the "boys are fathers" to be the boy sitting at the TV with a cola in one hand and remote in the other as the "kid" dolls played monopoly, or something along the lines of the vintage battleship game box"
Sounds like my dad. Just because its offensive doesnt mean that its discriminatory. This would be accurate depiction of most fathers. At least mine (and I'm sure plenty of posters on these forums as well).
I should probably add with the girl working hard in the background and the guy is lazy. I was more going towards the usual "It's the wife's job to take care of the kids, take care of the house, and take care of the man, cause he spends 8 hours a day at work and deserves a break. All she is doing is housework for 16+ hours and that isn't 'work'" crap you get from people who support rigid gender stereotypes in relationships.
Gopher
1. Fathers not doing their fair share of housework and childcare IS discriminatory.
2. My father never sat in front of the TV after work doing nothing.
He worked 10 hours a day in the photo retouching lab he worked at Monday through Friday (with a 2 hour commute each way, he came home right before the 10 o'clock news, just in time to eat, inject his insulin, go to bed and get up the next day).
On Saturdays and Sundays he set up his portable mini retouching lab in his bedroom and did work that didn't get done during the week in the lab.
Except on Sunday mornings - when he used to bake fresh bread for me, my mom and my brother.
He also used to build furniture for our home, fix our cars (or try to - and take them to the shop to get the pros to fix it right) and help my mom with our little back yard garden.
He also was heavily involved with the schizophrenia support group in our neighborhood (my brother suffered from that disease)
Maybe your dad sat around the house after work doing nothing, and played no role in day to day household management - but not everybody's dad was like that!
Mine sure as hell wasn't!
And that was back in the 1970's - when men weren't expected to do much at home!
So please don't get it twisted!
The only acceptable one is "Boys are heroes; Girls are heroines." But the picture for the girl on that one didn't seem too heroic when compared to the boy's. At least it's better that "Boys are heroes; Girls are damsels.
I had a guidance counselor show me this book in high school (10 years ago). She advised our GSA (and was quite progressive for our small midwest town) and thought I'd "appreciate" it. I cried when reading it. It started me on the path to feminism, and the following year I did competitive oratory on the topic of gender roles (and why they are bad).
I spent years trying to buy a copy of the book and never succeeded. A good friend of mine was head of circulation of a library and copied and bound it for me (which is likely illegal), so I finally have my own copy. It sits among my gender and sexuality textbooks from college!
This is kind of off-topic, but did anyone ever have Amelia Badelia books read to them as a kid? If you've never heard of them, they centered around this ditzy female maid who gets everything confused. Thinking back to it, it's completely sexist and probably written around the same time as this Darrow book. A person might say that having a ditzy maid isn't sexist because it doesn't say all women are ditzy, but come on, can you picture a book with a ditzy male protagonist?
I remember Amelia Badelia books! She need her bread to rise so she tied strings to the pan and connected them to the ceiling.
This book actually HAS gone over most of your heads. Whitney Darrow was a satirical cartoonists for many magazines and newspapers (like the New Yorker) during the prime of his career. Unlike the author of the entry claims it was written not in the 1950s, but near the late 60s/early 70s as a satirical response to opposition of second wave feminism.
The author of this entry was incorrect for two reasons:
A) It was satire
B) It was published 18-22 years after she claimed
But instead of a researched and well prepared argument, this is what she published.
False. Darrow did do satire, but he also illustrated many children's books, and as Caitlin noted above, children's books reviewers did not treat it as satire when it was published, so obviously it was not marketed as such but as a children's book.
The fact that the public did not accept at as satire doesn't change the root message behind it. Are you trying to say that out of all his work, this book in particular is different and stands out against the rest of his work? Coincidentally, at the same time second wave feminism was making headlines all around the country?
It was Satire.
Sorry, but it didn't look like satire to me.
It looked like this was written by somebody who had REALLY NARROW views on gender - and, it was purchased by School Boards that had equally as narrow views, and used in classrooms to indoctrinate the next generation of 1st graders with said really narrow gender role views.
Not a lot of satire there.
A whole lot of patheticism.
But no satire.
At least the book is being honest. But still - ick.
While the children's books on the market today are, sometimes, MUCH fairer toward all kinds of children, a lot of them are still sexist or racist - subtly, though. Almost all the ones I see are hugely heteronormative, too.
I can't believe I'm about to say this, but seeing this book was refreshing in a way. A scary, gross way, and it made me extremely grateful to our foremothers.
There's nothing like a little bald-faced sexism to get ya through the day.
I thought the 'boys eat', 'girls cook' image was pretty sucky, until I looked at the rest of the images on the other blog...
"Boys are doctors. Girls are nurses.. Boys are police. Girls are metermaids... Boys are pilots. Girls are stewardesses" I mean.... jesus fucking christ. It really does make me proud that my mother's generation has made it possible for women to be doctors, dentists, lawyers, pilots, police officers, athletes, engineers, mechanics, architects, soldiers... whatever they want to be. It kicks ass when you realise just how fucked up the world was only 50 years ago.
The worst thing is that there are still waaay too many countries in the world where these types of gender roles are still the norm.
It kicks ass when you realise just how fucked up the world was only 50 years ago.
Word. it is really nice to take a step back, amidst all of the back-and-forth and realize that progress actually is possible.
"Boys are glad girls are no longer depicted like the stereotypes in this book." At least this "boy" is very glad.
oMg! i think i'm going to vomit.