- Deer Tick DangersPosted 1 day ago
- IRS Questioned Over Targeting ScandalPosted 3 days ago
- Midwest Gas Price SpikePosted 3 days ago
- FOX CountryPosted 3 days ago
- Life Expectancy RisesPosted 3 days ago
- David Beckham To Retire From SoccerPosted 3 days ago
- FOX in the Fast Lane: All-Star Race (Charlotte)Posted 3 days ago
Is Winnie-the-Pooh Sexist?
A comprehensive study of traditional children’s book characters has determined that Pooh Corner may be rife with gender inequality.
Dr. Janice McCabe, a sociologist at Florida State University, examined nearly 6,000 children’s books between 1900 and 2000 and determined the stories have a definitive gender bias and a disproportionate representation of genders.
“We found that males are represented more frequently than females in the titles and the central characters in the book,” McCabe told Fox News Radio. 57 percent of the children’s stories featured male characters, 31 percent featured female characters and the remainder had animal characters of unknown gender identity.
Audio clip:
Curious George, perhaps?
McCabe said she was surprised that modern-day children’s stories don’t include more female characters.
“I had kind of expected that books would start off in 1900 being unequal and become more equal over time,” she said. “We were surprised by the historical patterns and by the animals. The fact that the animals were the most unequal and even in the 1990s there were still two male animals to every one female animal.”
McCabe said gender matters in children’s stories because it’s in part how they learn about gender.
“These findings reinforce the belief that female characters are less important, less interesting than male characters which has implications for how both boys and girls feel about themselves and each other in relationships,” she said.
But some parents believe the study is off the mark.
“This is crazy,” said Bryan Thrower, the parent of a 17-month-old in Florence, SC. “Are they upset because Mary had a garden and Old MacDonald had a farm?” This is more politically correct nonsense.”
But McCabe said the pattern also exists in other children’s media including cartoons, coloring books, and G-rated films.
“A lot of times this is invisible to people,” she said, encouraging parents to pay attention to gender when selecting books and reading material for their children.
“I’m not saying they shouldn’t read books about men and boys,” she said. “Instead, just think about the gender of particular books and be aware of it.”
Has anyone called Nancy Drew?
WWilson
May 6, 2011 at 2:15 pm
I thought Winnie-the-Pooh was an expression of the playful imagination of a boy. Boy's that age generally like to be with boys and their imaginary friends are male. Academics are crack-pots.
Doug Whitten
May 7, 2011 at 10:29 am
it is and it's sad that these people are getting paid to tear a story about a little boy into a sexist thing. this is sooo stupid__
becca
May 6, 2011 at 2:36 pm
Some have to find reasons to take joy out of everything. Children don't count the number of boys and girls in a story. They just want to be entertained.
OldCurmudgeon
May 6, 2011 at 3:16 pm
The unspoken question…."And just who paid for this indispensable and crucial study?"
Followup question: "Is this what Florida State considers "research scholarship"?"
That's the true story.
Eric H
May 6, 2011 at 3:56 pm
“A lot of times this is invisible to people,” she said…
OMG!!! You're right! Good thing we have the all-seeing guardians of academia to help us po' blind ignant foke to keep from tripping over the pernicious dangers of gender bias in kid lit.
hrayspitz
May 6, 2011 at 5:06 pm
Somebody has waaaaaaaaay too much time and grant money.
I really, really hope tax dollars didn't fund this steaming pile.
CHOW
May 6, 2011 at 5:40 pm
I read her bio at fsu: http://www.fsu.edu/~soc/people/mccabe/
Her BA was in Woman's studies followed by a masters and phd in sociology. Obviously this woman was an academic bottom feeder in post secondary school. I never take serious anybody whose academic credentials begins with a course of study ending in the word 'studies'. And it is crackpot 'research' like this which illustrates why.
Pat
May 6, 2011 at 5:43 pm
I bet all the characters that gave birth or were pregnant were female. How sexist!
Do "unknown gender identity" animals support trans-gendered individuals?
I wonder what the sex of the authors were, and if that sheds any light. For instance, if the majority of writers that had female lead characters were male, does that show they "care" more? Or will it be viewed as "males trying to influence the female gender"? If women write books with male characters is it the inverse?
Why should everything be equal anyway? Books come from the individual will (for the most part) and should be valued for the lessons and stories they contain, not the sex, race, or animal identity of the characters. If most textbooks are written by men, does that mean they are smarter? More interested in writing books? Sexist? This research smacks of an attempt to belittle and emasculate our culture once again. Sad.
TMS
May 6, 2011 at 6:00 pm
So why doesn't she write a story to buck the trend? Oh, wait, that might involve only getting paid if it sold …. Darn free-market!
TheNilvarg
May 6, 2011 at 6:58 pm
"Intellectuals" and "academics" have to go. They are completely useless to modern civilization. All they do is waste tax dollars and grant money making pointless, misguided studies about how whites, males, capitalists, straight people, the wealthy, Conservatives, and Christians are evil and must be subjugated.
marchwind
May 7, 2011 at 9:52 am
I agree.These so-called studies are a waste of time and money. I don't believe that the average "normal" person views childrens literature in this way.The only childrens literature that I would be suspect of would be the modern brain washing garbage that people write to make what is normal seem wrong,and what is wrong to seem normal.No, I am not politically correct – whatever that is actually suppose to mean. Heather does'nt have two mommies.
wcgreen
May 6, 2011 at 7:15 pm
McCabe admits that "A lot of times this is invisible to people" so how does she know it affects anyone?
MuckedOver
May 6, 2011 at 8:36 pm
Oh bother…
Inyerface
May 6, 2011 at 9:33 pm
To be fair….McCabe shows that female douchebags outnumber male jerk o mats by an easy two to one margin. She obviously didn't get picked for teams….pretty much had a zero prom date option….carried on a secret obsession with absolutely nothing of importance except for her elevated opinion of a non issue. Children's books? She needs to go to a third world country and see that children's books being sexist is the least of children's problems. She could start with Dearborn..then Detroit….what a moron.
joe
May 7, 2011 at 8:26 am
Kanga and Rabbit are females.
And btw writer, Dr McCabe didn't really study books between 1900 and 2000, did she? Is she 130+ years old?
gojira7
May 7, 2011 at 9:56 am
Another example of how "intellectuals" are really just stupid people with enough money to buy a degree.
Doug Whitten
May 7, 2011 at 10:30 am
Please don't tell me that the US government is providing funds for these people to come up with this crap??????????????
IndyRepublican
May 7, 2011 at 11:13 am
This chick is just nuts.
Mary De Voe
May 7, 2011 at 2:56 pm
Cinderella and her God mother, Snow White and the evil witch and of course, Belle from Beauty and the Beast, the Little Mermaid, were female, The mice were all male, the Dwarves were all male, Beast was male, the Prince was male. This is censorship. Infringing on intellectual property rights because of a vacuity of one's own. These people ought to be writing their own books and stories instead of censoring other person's free speech.
George
May 7, 2011 at 8:43 pm
Winnie sexist? Is Winnie male or female? It could be Winifred or it could be Winston — does anyone know for sure? This gender equity bit is getting totally ludicrous (actually, it's been ludicrous from the beginning) — "Males get mentioned 2 more times than females …" Geesh ! The stupidity.
McBehrer
May 15, 2011 at 8:43 pm
I never understood this. In order for a piece of literature, cartoons, or what have you to be "fair" (also, I dare you to try and define "fair" literature) it has to have the exact same amount of males as females AND you have to have at least one male and one female doing each job? That's just stupid. I can understand when something has unrealistic, offensive portrayals of women — like Family Guy's Christians and Jews, or any Nazi piece's Jews and black people (actually, come to think about it, those are basically the same) — but basing your opinion solely on the fact that they show more men than women?
Ridiculous.