Picture books are a wonderful part of a child's life: closely bonding them with family and providing lasting inspiration, enjoyment and education. Unfortunately, many of these books reinforce restrictive gender stereotypes rather than upholding cultural progress and preparing future adults for further change.

The status of stereotypes

In an interview conducted last year (21 December), Sue Walker (lecturer at the Queensland University of Technology School of Early Childhood) pointed out that there has been some alleviation of the rigidity of gender stereotyping in children's books during the last few decades, but ‘it is [still] usually boys who are saving the day in the end.'

One of the fundamental problems with this and other gendered behaviour patterns commonly appearing in picture books, is that many of the children exposed to them—particularly those aged between two and three—are discovering how to categorise themselves by gender.

Once children of this age group form a gender identity, Walker says, ‘they actively pay attention to gender relevant information, so behaviours and values that are presented as “for boys” or “for girls” are likely to be adopted. They also tend to ignore, avoid or forget information that is counter-stereotypical.' She believes encouraging adherence to stereotypes can restrict children's engagement with early childhood programs and prevent them from reaching their potential.

According to Walker, girls don't often play in the ‘block corner' and lack visual spatial skills as a result—while boys avoid dramatic play and tend not to develop verbal and ‘perspective taking' skills. Girls usually have well developed fine motor skills from sedentary activities, while boys' active play improves their gross motor muscles.

‘Often when boys commence school they are not developmentally ready to hold a pencil and write,' she says. ‘Missing out on these early experiences can act to limit choices as children grow and develop.'

Walker argues boys may be most at risk, because in early childhood they conform to gender stereotypes more rigorously.

‘It is more acceptable for girls to engage in counter-stereotypical behaviour than it is for boys,' she explains. ‘It has been said that the most important thing for girls to learn is how not to be a baby, whereas the most important thing for boys to learn is how not to be a girl. Perhaps this is due to the fact that the male role is perceived to have more value in our society.'

Depictions of parents

In addition to generally being more ‘active' in children's stories, male characters are more prevalent. Unfortunately, as US researchers, David Anderson and Mykol Hamilton found in their 2005 analysis of 200 award-winning and best-selling picture books, they are rarely portrayed as good parents.

While there were ‘father' characters in 47 per cent of the books studied, ‘mother' characters appeared in twice as many scenes and were shown from an entirely different perspective.

‘When present, fathers were relatively less likely than mothers to touch, hug, kiss, make other contact with, talk to, or feed children,' the authors report. ‘Mothers were shown more often than fathers as caring nurturers who discipline their children and express a full range of emotions. Fathers were under-represented and portrayed as relatively stoic actors who took little part in the lives of their children.'

Anderson and Hamilton did not extend their research to examine the influence of parent stereotypes in the picture books studied, but they believe it is likely that parents' and children's attitudes and behaviour would be directly affected.

They conclude that representations of parents can pose a risk to parents and children at important periods in their development. That is, ‘when parents identify their role in the spectrum from affectionate caregiver to deadbeat absentee, and when children form their expectations of their parents.'

Positive representations

Children's book illustrator, Terry Denton said (in an interview conducted 10 January this year) that he aims to minimise stereotyping in his work and seeks out texts which support this. He illustrated Natalie Jane Prior's The paw (1993) which features Leonie, a school-girl by day and a brave and bold cat-burglar by night.

‘As a parent with daughters I was delighted to have a text to illustrate that presented such a heroic and active girl character,' Denton says. ‘An illustrator's job is to reflect what the author has written, and in this case the author gave the reader a great non-stereotypical character.'

A search on Amazon.com retrieved several non-stereotypical books published in recent years. For example, Skateboard mom (2004) and Claydon was a clingy child (2001) both portray active mothers. The princess knight (2004) and Do princesses wear hiking boots? (2003) diversify the traditional princess character, while fairy tales are rewritten in The brave little seamstress (2002) and Sleeping Bobby (2005). Some older books I found in a university library (presumably for student teachers) which oppose and diversify gender roles include: William's doll (1972) by Charlotte Zolotow and William Pene du Bois The paper bag princess (1980) by Robert Munsch and Michael Martchenko My dad takes care of me (1987) by Patricia Quinlan and Vlasta van Kampen Tidy titch (1991) by Pat Hutchins

However, Denton has noticed a recent resurgence in books which emphasise separate genders. ‘Now authors and publishers and booksellers seem to feel there is a big market for what they perceive as typically boy or girl centred literature … I am often being told by editors to make the girls more girly and the boys more boy-y.'

‘We all have our soft side and our aggressive side, our wild side and our calm side, our irrational side and our logical side. That is what makes us unique as humans,' Denton says. ‘One of my challenges is to depict kids of whatever sex as multi dimensional.'

Melissa Giles

Reference

Anderson, D. and Hamilton, M. (2005). Gender role stereotyping of parents in children's picture books: the invisible father. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 52(3–4), 145–151, Retrieved 3 February, 2006, www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2294/is_3-4_52/ai_n13651301

Don't forget, Every Child is tax deductible for early childhood professionals

You can purchase this issue of Every Child magazine now.

Back to Every Child magazine Vol. 12 No. 3 2006

Back to Every Child magazine

Other Editions of Every Child magazine

Did you like this article? Share it with others online!  - What does this mean?               You can subscribe to ECA's Every Child magazine article index news feed here Learn more about RSS news feeds If you liked this article, you can 'social bookmark' it with others who might be searching for good content on early childhood. This means you can share your favourite webpages with others, or just keep an online list of your bookmarks so you can access them on any computer. Read more about social bookmarks More about digg>> More about del.icio.us>> More about google>>    More about yahoo>> More about stumbleupon>> More about reddit>> Close this window