CCBC-Net Archives
Gender Roles - Fact checking, Recommendations, and Possible Actions
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Charles Bayless <charles.bayless_at_ttmd.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 18:02:29 -0400
Megan's reference to the article by Thomas Jacobs led me to some research and speculation, too long to post here. I have instead posted my thoughts on my blog.
The first post (Fact checking whether gender stereotypes plague children's books, addresses the empirical and logical condition of Jacobs' argument. Jacobs makes four critical assumptions to support his conclusion that "If children, especially girls, continue to be exposed to portrayals that suggest opportunities for women are limited to the home, and that men provide, their aspirations and independence will be muted." Two of these assumptions are false and two cannot be affirmed therefore his conclusion cannot be affirmed. His conclusion might possibly be correct but he has not made a logical and empirically based argument to support the conclusion. The empirical data does raise significant doubt that the conclusion is warranted.
The second post (What are the grounds for normative recommendations, html) reflects on the logical and philosophical grounds for making normative recommendations along the lines of "We need more X. . . ", X being some attribute such as age, race, gender, orientation, religion, ethnicity, physical condition, etc. The conclusion is that there is no credible basis for making such a recommendation other than individual opinion or desire to pursue a particular outcome above and beyond the willingness of the general reading public. However, there is reason to believe that given a near infinity (for the practical purposes of a single reader) of publishers, authors, and annual new titles, that books with significant attention to an otherwise underrepresented attribute (or more commonly combination of attributes) are likely to go undiscovered. In essence, in a market that is large, fast paced, and fragmented (hard to connect authors/books with readers short on time, money and cognitive attention), and which is domina ted by a reading public that is not statistically identical to the larger population, there will always be attributes that are underrepresented and undiscovered by readers with a very targeted interest.
The third post (Time, money and cognitive energy are all in short supply for parents, all.html) is an outline of four actions that might be taken by the book reading public and some institution(s) (ALA, CCBC, etc.) that could both reduce the degree of underrepresentation and increase the public profile of books with attributes that are underrepresented or are too frequently misrepresented.
Charles
Received on Thu 15 Aug 2013 06:02:29 PM CDT
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 18:02:29 -0400
Megan's reference to the article by Thomas Jacobs led me to some research and speculation, too long to post here. I have instead posted my thoughts on my blog.
The first post (Fact checking whether gender stereotypes plague children's books, addresses the empirical and logical condition of Jacobs' argument. Jacobs makes four critical assumptions to support his conclusion that "If children, especially girls, continue to be exposed to portrayals that suggest opportunities for women are limited to the home, and that men provide, their aspirations and independence will be muted." Two of these assumptions are false and two cannot be affirmed therefore his conclusion cannot be affirmed. His conclusion might possibly be correct but he has not made a logical and empirically based argument to support the conclusion. The empirical data does raise significant doubt that the conclusion is warranted.
The second post (What are the grounds for normative recommendations, html) reflects on the logical and philosophical grounds for making normative recommendations along the lines of "We need more X. . . ", X being some attribute such as age, race, gender, orientation, religion, ethnicity, physical condition, etc. The conclusion is that there is no credible basis for making such a recommendation other than individual opinion or desire to pursue a particular outcome above and beyond the willingness of the general reading public. However, there is reason to believe that given a near infinity (for the practical purposes of a single reader) of publishers, authors, and annual new titles, that books with significant attention to an otherwise underrepresented attribute (or more commonly combination of attributes) are likely to go undiscovered. In essence, in a market that is large, fast paced, and fragmented (hard to connect authors/books with readers short on time, money and cognitive attention), and which is domina ted by a reading public that is not statistically identical to the larger population, there will always be attributes that are underrepresented and undiscovered by readers with a very targeted interest.
The third post (Time, money and cognitive energy are all in short supply for parents, all.html) is an outline of four actions that might be taken by the book reading public and some institution(s) (ALA, CCBC, etc.) that could both reduce the degree of underrepresentation and increase the public profile of books with attributes that are underrepresented or are too frequently misrepresented.
Charles
Received on Thu 15 Aug 2013 06:02:29 PM CDT
