Quantcast
Channel: Library Life – Megan Frazer Blakemore
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 13

Banishing “Boy Books” and “Girl Books” from the Library Lexicon

0
0

Kid Lit Women banner with text: We're celebrating Women's History month with 31 days of posts focused on improving the climate for social and gender equality in the children’s and teens’ literature community. Join in the conversation on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/kidlitwomen or Twitter #kidlitwomen

KidLitWomen kicked off with a post from Shannon Hale about how children are steered toward books and authors based on gender. Since then we’ve had several posts on the boy book / girl book phenomenon, each with a unique perspective. Today I want to tackle this topic as a librarian. How do we play a part in this problem and what can we do to make it better?

First, as always, I like to assume good intentions. I believe that, for librarians anyway, categorizing books as “boy books” and “girl books” grew out of the boys reading problem. At the start of the century, research came out showing that boys’ literacy skills and academic achievement were lagging behind those of boys. A number of explanations were given for why boys seemed to be struggling with reading. In the book Reading Matters: What the Research Reveals about Reading, Libraries, and Community (Libraries Unlimited, 2005), McKechnie defines three categories of explanation:

  • Essentialist: Boys are just different
  • Construction of literacy as feminized: This idea was explored in Thomas Newkirk’s outstanding book Misreading Masculinity (Heinemann, 2002). Most school teachers and librarians are women, casting a femininity over reading, especially when those women choose favorite books to read and share.
  • Reading is too schoolish. This idea is related to the first, and was explored and studied by Jeffrey D. Wilhelm and Michael Smith in their landmark book Reading Don’t Fix No Chevies (Heinemann, 2002)

Each of these explanations requires its own solutions. Teachers and librarians have stepped up to the plate and have expanded reading choices, such as bringing more nonfiction into collections. Somewhere along the way, though, the idea of expanding choices has morphed. It went from: include more options that boys may like to we need books for boys to these are the books for boys. It went from “Let’s not force boys to read books they don’t want to read” to “Let’s not invite boys to read books about girls.” And that’s the problem. We shouldn’t be forcing any kid to read something they don’t want to read, not if our goal is to make kids love reading. We should be offering more books, not limiting choices.

But here’s the good news: we already know how to solve this problem. When a kid comes into the library and asks for book recommendations, you don’t see “Boy child, fifth grade” or “Girl child, second grade.” You see Michael who loves graphic novels, especially ones with adventures. You see Lucy who loves coding and inventing. You know these kids because they are your kids. When I’m doing readers advisory, their gender is pretty much the least useful piece of information I have about them.

If we’re not considering gender when doing reader’s advisory, why do this when it comes to collection development? Our students are unique readers, and we need to develop our collections accordingly. We do them a great disservice when we stop thinking of them as readers and instead use stereotypical ideas about “Boys” and “Girls”. Plus this dichotomy leaves out nonbinary and other gender non-conforming kids. We want to build a collection that has books for every reader. If we stop thinking of kids as readers, but instead reduce them to their gender alone, our collection development is going to be stunted. We will miss readers. We will not have what our kids need.

Worse, we might have the books that kids need, but give the impression that those books are not for them. By designating books as being for one gender, we are spreading the message that those books are not a good fit for those kids who fall outside of that gender. We are limiting choice.

I believe strongly that every kid deserves to see themselves on the pages of books, but here again relying solely on gender fails us. It is not enough to say boy character = boy book, girl character = girl book. This arithmetic does not add up. Weaker still is male author = for the boys and female author = for the girls. We need to seek out a wide representation of boys and of girls so that these mirrors are available to our students. We also need to understand that a boy can see himself in a girl character, and a girl can see herself in a boy character, and cis-gendered kids can see themselves in trans characters, on and on and on. And we need to invite our readers to look through lenses different than their own.

So, let’s banish the phrases “for the boys” and “for the girls” from our vocabulary. Whether we’re ordering books for the library, recommending books for state or other lists, or talking to teachers about great new books, let’s leave gender out of the discussion. Instead let’s talk about readers first: readers who love fantasy, readers who love sports, readers who love fart jokes, readers who love glittery ponies, readers who love sad books, readers who want graphic novels. When we meet those needs, we reach every reader.


Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 13

Latest Images

Trending Articles





Latest Images