posted
I like to read old children's books to the kids I babysit, because they have engaging and interesting stories, and I think growing up with classics was a really good thing for me. I want to give that to other kids.
Problem, though: a lot of them present really awful gender roles. Peter Pan, for instance, while a beautiful and charming novel, is nothing I'd ever read to a child because seriously?--Wendy's purpose in Neverland is to cook and clean and never have any adventures at all? No. I'm not teaching kids that.
So: any suggestions? Any children's classics that I can read to kids without teaching them that women are submissive domestics?
Posts: 1735 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cheaper by the Dozen. The wife works alongside the husband and the girl children get into just as much trouble as the boys.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wendy's purpose in Neverland is to cook and clean and never have any adventures at all? No. I'm not teaching kids that.
I didn't see Wendy as being submissive to Peter at ALL. If anything, she was the civilizing influence to his boyish savage. I'm surprised the fact Peter has no compunctions with slitting pirate's throats in their sleep didn't give you more pause than Wendy's desire to make sure the Lost Boys didn't live in filth and squalor.
Also, wasn't it Wendy's idea to go back home, against Peter's wishes? I need to go back and read the book, there's so many iterations I'm mixing them up.
But let me think about it and I'll get back to you.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you are talking about "classics" you are going to be dealing with somewhat old-fashioned gender stereotypes simply because of the time in which they were written, but there are plenty of strong girl characters.
Any of the Oz books. Dorothy is in charge.
Anne of Green Gables and sequels
Wolves of Willoughby Chase - one of the girls is more guiet and "ladylike" and the other is more outgoing and assertive.
Heidi and its sequels
Little Women and other Alcott books
Little House books by Laura Ingalls Wilder
Wrinkle in Time and sequels
That's a start. What age are the children?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My youngest sister loved Children of the New Forest, set during the English civil wra (although it's all in reasonably archaic language), and it didn't matter that the girls took on more traditionally feminine roles because that's what they did back then. My sister was a male character for Hallowe'en that year.
I think the most important thing in a children's book is that the children (including the girls) think intelligently. And to read a variety of books. If you're reading books in which girls take on all kinds of roles, then you're not dictating one or the other.
That said, if they were particularly pink and fluffy children I was babysitting I would probably start with something a little pink and fluffy (such as The Little Princess) to get them into the world first before embarking on a mission to broaden their minds a bit.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I didn't see Wendy as being submissive to Peter at ALL. If anything, she was the civilizing influence to his boyish savage.
Right. Boys get to play, the girls have to "civilize".
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
To Kill a Mockingbird is a great book. I would check out the more difficult scenes in it to make sure they are age appropriate for the kids.
Of course, that is true for most books. Mockingbird does pretty specifically address some pretty adult themes.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mockingbird would be excellent, actually. And Oz.
Has anyone hear read The Little Princess, and know if it's any good?
The children are 4, 7, and 8, but they all still like to be read to (even though the eight-year-old says he doesn't, he still hangs around in the corners when I'm reading. 'cause you know, there's nothing on TV. Uh-huh. Sure, kiddo).
Posts: 1735 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also recommend "Swallows and Amazons" and indeed the many sequels.
I was always a "chalet school" fan as a child, and while the schoolgirls are in some ways subject to the gender expectations of the early 20th century, they also have a wide range of talents, aspirations and characters. Definitely some of the best school stories ever written.
Posts: 1550 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've read A Little Princess. It's quite good, but if you have a boy in your group, I'm not sure he would be particularly interested. Sounds like the girls are already hooked. I wouldn't want to lose the boy to the TV.)
What about the Famous Five? They drip Britishness but they would be reasonably accessible to a four year old, contain both boys and girls, are exciting and have a girl who occupies traditionally male roles. (Also, the boy might pick up the books himself).
The Borrowers, I double my Roald Dahl recommendation, the earlier Narnia books, the Secret Garden and the Railway Children.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The children are 4, 7, and 8, but they all still like to be read to (even though the eight-year-old says he doesn't, he still hangs around in the corners when I'm reading. 'cause you know, there's nothing on TV. Uh-huh. Sure, kiddo).
Heh. My 7-year-old does this with "princess books" which he says he hates. But oddly enough, he has them all completely memorized.
ETA: Of course, we've explained to him that boys are welcome to read princess books. I mean, they're full of babes, after all. Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd consider the Narnia books as having pretty traditional gender roles. Probably more so even than Peter Pan.
All that aside though, I'd think it's less important to avoid reading books like Peter Pan than it is to make sure they aren't reading ONLY books like Peter Pan.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anne of Green Gables has strong women and so does the next one, Anne of Avonlea, but small children are likely to be less interested in the following stories, and also the gender roles get more "traditional" (not that that bothers me, they're still among my favorites.)
How about some Alcott? She was big on womens' rights. Eight Cousins and Rose in Bloom get awful preachy about it in particular (though the debate in them might not be relevant in today's world...) Anyway, Little Women has great, strong women in it.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I'd consider the Narnia books as having pretty traditional gender roles. Probably more so even than Peter Pan.
By the time one reaches characters like Jill, Aravis, and Polly, not so much.
Though it's in the decidedly for adults Till We Have Faces that Lewis finally created fully dimensional female characters who didn't get short shrift in certain areas.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Heh. A feminist teacher in college once raked me over the coals for liking L'Engle's time series. Apparently Meg's gradual transformation from awkward, angry girl to lovely and at peace with the world was "sexist propaganda."
Because nothing's more subversive than a former firecracker finding happiness.
The Judy Garland/MGM Oz movie really did such a disservice to Dorothy and Glinda. That's why Gregory M. can get away with retconning them into a weepy load and a ditzy flake in Wicked. People are unfamiliar with Baum's original creations.
Heh. A feminist teacher in college once raked me over the coals for liking L'Engle's time series. Apparently Meg's gradual transformation from awkward, angry girl to lovely and at peace with the world was "sexist propaganda".
Because nothing's more subversive than a former firecracker finding happiness.
But...you have to stay angry to be a good feminist!
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Right. Boys get to play, the girls have to "civilize".
A comment about Peter Pan:
Most people seem to feel that the theme of Peter Pan is that children should hold onto their childhood and maintain a sense of wonder and imagination even into adulthood. If you actually read it, Barrie's argument is nothing of the sort. He repeatedly describes Peter as cruel and thoughtless, and in desperate need of civilizing influence, which is equated with "growing up." Peter doesn't grow up because he's selfish, but growing up is morally desirable.
As to Wendy being relegated to cooking and cleaning, yes, that is what Peter desires, he just wants her to tell stories and clean up after the boys. But this isn't what Wendy delivers. Her version of being a mother means requiring the boys to live by rules, which Peter dislikes. Eventually the other lost boys realize how Peter has mistreated them, and they choose to leave his Neverland (there are multiple Neverlands, the only one we get to see is Peter's) and go back to civilization where they will grow up.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really love the Great Brain books by John D. Fitzgerald, but they're terrible about gender roles. Basically only the boys are people. They're still great stories, though.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: From the Mixed-Up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler hasn't been mentioned yet.
I have rectified that. Go me.
House of Stairs. William Sleator. And of course, The Bridge to Terebithia. And Julia's Kitchen (Brenda A. Ferber).
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So You Want To Be A Wizard? by Diane Duane. And its sequels. Though, I'm sure the classic status is debatable.
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: The Secret Garden, maybe?
This is one case where a classic really hasn't aged well. At some point around the middle the book ceases being an actual story...it becomes instead a series of vignettes on how good the moor makes hearty country cookin' taste.
The 1993 film adaptation does a much better job at keeping the focus on the characters, not their meals. Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Pippi Longstockings" (and others in that series) and "Ronia, the Robbers Daughter" by Astrid Lindgren
Posts: 315 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You may be right, Puff. I haven't read it since I was about ten, but I watch the movie now and again.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Joldo: Mockingbird would be excellent, actually. And Oz.
Has anyone hear read The Little Princess, and know if it's any good?
The children are 4, 7, and 8, but they all still like to be read to (even though the eight-year-old says he doesn't, he still hangs around in the corners when I'm reading. 'cause you know, there's nothing on TV. Uh-huh. Sure, kiddo).
A Little Princess is about how cruddy things happen to a little girl and she turns the other cheek because that's what princesses do. If you want the cynical view, then I would say it's about as bad as Peter Pan. However, the message can also be about good behavior. It's an easy read, so I would decide for myself if I were you.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree about The Little Princess. I think it's about a little girl who makes the best of a bad situation which totally unlike what she is used to (a bit like The Secret Garden). It's about rising above what life hands you. You don't have to be a miserable brat just because your fortunes have changed.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not really a classic in the strictest sense, but I really liked The Egypt Game when I was younger.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
If you want to be PC-to-the-max, I just remembered one I used to read when I was little called Stories for Free Children. It was a collection of short stories and excerpts from longer works and poems and such, some fiction, some non-, many of which were originally published in Ms. Magazine...
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Peter Pan, to me, is a tragedy. I think most people probably have one of the movie versions or picture book versions in mind... I finally read the actual book a while back and found Peter's never growing up to be very sad.
Posts: 454 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: You are so wrong, Puffy. *loves The Secret Garden*
Where did I say I hated it? I loved the book until the characters began to do nothing but eat boiled eggs, fresh baked bread, and ham sandwiches.
And talk about nothing how stuffed they are, but they simply -must- have another bite.
It was all padding, used to stretch things out until the ending. I know back in that era MOST kiddie books used extended eat & banter sequences to pad things out, but I really can't get into it.
Not even when I was -in- the target age group.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Puffy, when did you last read it? I read it again a few months ago, and I'm amazed at how much more I get out of it each time I read it. That whole section you're complaining about is actually about healthy living, horticulture, spirituality, and social commentary. It never bored me, but I'm interested in all that stuff...
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
*loves The Secret Garden*
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Was a favorite bedtime story as a child...
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
