A few months ago I was at a thrift stop (like I pretty much am for 99.9% of my life) and I found this book published in 1963. It's not very long at all, the font is pretty big, and the language is relatively simple -- it's obviously one of those sort of chapter books that serves as a stepping stone between children's books and novels for kids most likely aged around 9-12. I bought it, because even though it's for kids, it looks like it'd be a pretty fun little read.
It's called The Mystery of the Disappearing Cars, by Cora Cheney. I opened up the book to one of the first pages, which had a little summary of the story. Underneath the summary it reads, "Mystery, adventure, and near-murder make this an exciting story for boys that girls will enjoy, too."
The wording gave me pause. I couldn't decide whether I found it kind of cool that they bothered to include girls at all, or kind of annoying that they worded it to give the impression of, "Well, girls can read it, but it's really a boys' book."
How do you guys feel about this kind of wording?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: "It's For Boys, But Girls Can Enjoy It Too, I Guess.".
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14655
It's sort of insulting to both genders to be honest. It implies boys only like books if they are violent and action packed.
Isn't almost everything that's for boys (or not just-for-girls) implicitly "for boys, but girls can enjoy it too?" I don't know, it just seems like every book or movie or game that's supposed to be for boys is okay for girls to like, too. We just expect it, so we don't need to say it.
Usually I see it the other way around - a book/movie that is "for girls" but will be palatable to boys on some level as well. Like Lilith said, it seems that usually it's assumed that girls/women will go along with what boys/men like. For example, that's the reason that is often given for there being so few films that star women: men won't go see those movies, but women are expected to go along with their boyfriends/husbands to see the latest dude-centric action thriller.
It reminds me of my childhood. During the time that Pokemon was huge, I was big fan. (I grew out of it for awhile but I've picked my games back up again recently.) I remember being met with some remarks that it was a "boy thing." I don't really remember how I responded to these remarks, though. It seemed the franchise started to realize they had female fans eventually and later games featured the option to play as a female character when previously one could only play as a male one. Today, I work as a stocker at Target and I notice Pokemon toys are still among the other "boy toys" but it's not like there's a gender-neutral section to put them in.
I have a 5yr old girl who has been in love (head over heels) for Thomas the Tank Engine and trains in general since she was about 18mons old. She has two much older brothers who didn't give trains more than a passing look. You can't believe the grief I have received for buying her "boy" toys or telling people who asked about gifts that she wanted trains.
It's patronizing and sexist, but as a historian I can't help but remind everyone to view it in the context and time -- pre-second wave feminism -- in which it was written. I do find it ironic that a presumably female author wrote such a "boy-centric" book.
I suspect that they were going to just call it "an exciting story for boys" but someone called them out on it, so they tacked the end part to try and boost up feminist cred.
"Vintage sexism."
And in 45 years, we'll be seeing ads of today, like the BK seven incher.
Unless we decline into idiocy and vulgarity as in the film "Idiocracy."
Reminds me of many recent comments I have seen and heard about current movies which state something about how males will like the film for the special effects, hot girls and action but females will also like it for the romantic story line.