Texts taught in school and sexism

Ria, you have misunderstood me.

I think the opposite. We should not ignore them. We should talk about them, teach them and teach that they are not acceptable.

Many texts - To Kill a Mockingbird, for example - do this. OMAM does not. It casually refers to women as "tarts" "bitches" and "sluts." It refers to the black character as a "n-gger" quite calmly.

I would not have a problem with this if the underlying theme in the text was that this was not right, but it isn't. The underlying theme in the text is about isolation and loneliness and while a teacher might well point out that these things are not very nice, it isn't central to the pupils' understanding and reading of the text.

I think that is what is important, Very, is the discussion. I didn't have that as a child, I was given a book, read it, and that was it. I absolutely don't for a moment believe all books with a racist or a sexist slant should be avoided, because as you rightly point out, a huge chunk of literature would be missed that way

However, I suppose I was thinking very specifically in terms of schools in my first post, and I do think that schools are different because kids know what is acceptable at home is not at school and my worry, with OMAM is that by having it as an examination text the attitudes in it are seen as acceptable when that text is taught and not, as LRD said, that sexism/racism is OK but more - "Oh, it was a long time ago, no big deal now!" when in fact it IS a big deal :)

But the point with George is that she wanted to be a boy, even insofar as rejecting her feminine name.

It wasn't enough for her to be a strong female - many of the strong females in Blyton's books are strong because they do not embody the traditionally female characteristics.

Elizabeth Allen in The Naughtiest Girl books is another example of this - strong, intelligent, feisty and rebellious, good female character except that she is dubbed "the naughtiest girl." I think many of Blyton's female characters were very intelligent but this often led them into trouble. I have a real affection for The Family at Red Roofs - one of the little known ones, I think - and the eldest girl in that is a lovely female character: strong, calm, capable and kind. Also the maid in that is lovely. Yet even in that text there are so many examples of sexism. Molly (the eldest girl) tells her younger sister that they need to keep their room tidy because now she is growing to be a young woman, it is what girls do the mother is a terrible female character and essentially falls apart after the father is believed to be lost at sea and leaves her four children to it while she recuperates, and Molly's friend tells a school-friend that "I want to be like my mother and make a nice home and make jam."

Honestly there are loads, I'd be here all day listing them. It surprises me how well I know Blyton though!

LRD - me too :)

Yes, good point about the flawed society. I suppose I am thinking in very practical terms insofar as we don't have time to explore that society in the sort of detail needed, and therefore important things (such as the sexism) are overlooked and that to an extent condones the sexism.

verySmall; I don't honestly know that it is, to tell you the truth, and I am saying that as a one-time ardent Enid Blyton fan! :) As adults, I think we can read (say) an Enid Blyton text and be charmed by the magic and the pixies and the fairies and view the sexism as just as sweet and silly, really, as the make-believe worlds that Blyton presents to us.

But just as very young children DO believe there might be a wishing-chair and a faraway tree with magic lands and pixies in the garden, I think they can believe that girls aren't as tough or strong as boys, and that they are essentially helpless silly little things or mini-Mummys, looking after the boys when they get into scrapes.

Of course in saying that I don't know how old your DDs are. I would certainly not censor Enid Blyton from my children but I would be wary about permitting the under-7s on it and I would ensure I kept up a dialogue with them about the times they were written in. Blyton was (is?) one of the most popular children's authors of the last and very possibly this century and yet she promotes a world where girls are feeble and helpless and xenophobia and bullying is not just acceptable but encouraged. That will have sunk in on some level, if not explicitly then almost certainly implicitly.

In place of OMAM on the other cultures section (AQA board, at any rate) I usually do To Kill a Mockingbird or Purple Hibiscus. Rabbit Proof Fence is a good alternative if you want a shorter text as well.

I don't know LRD, about condoning the attitudes. I want to agree with you but I think Steinbeck did view it as perfectly fine, acceptable, normal, to objectify women, and while there is some limited sympathy with the plight of Curley's wife it isn't the main focus of the novel, though I fully accept that we can teach it in a way that does bring sympathy with her to the forefront.

By the way, I am not suggesting for a moment a book burning fest I absolutely agree we need to have these books to see where we came from and where we are now. But I am uncomfortable about teaching it in the context of a classroom as an examination text to pupils of this age group.

LRD, I feel that given that these attitudes are in existence, it is unwise to condone them through the text.

It is like when the word "bastard" is used - you inevitably get kids saying "bastard" and when pulled up on it look all wide-eyed and say, "What? It's in the book!"

By saying these attitudes exist(ed), there is a danger of condoning those attitudes. I don't have a problem with the text being taught per se but the 'bitch/tart/spend my money on prostitutes' is not really taught as a prevailing theme in the novel; as such it is overlooked and therefore condoned.

I don't think she'd ever have let us think 'well, the book is sexist so sexism is ok', but we might have thought 'the book is sexist but it's ok, sexism happened a long time ago'

LRD, that is my primary issue and concern with the text.

I applaud your English teacher but the latter attitude seems to be the one that is prevalent; partly because of the time factor (there is so much to get through and so little time in which to do it!) but also because I think many people, many teachers, DO think it's okay and it doesn't matter and it was a long time ago.

That is really what I am referring to when I use the word 'casual.'

I fully respect anyone who teaches this text and take task with the issues raised. However, I don't think that many do. Furthermore, there are alternatives that DON'T routinely refer to women as bitches and tarts, that give the message that racism is unacceptable and wrong and that are excellent stories - I suppose I don't understand why OMAM is such a popular choice in light of that!

Lizzie, yes, I can see that.

However, my concern with OMAM is that there's no real point to counterbalance the racism or the sexism. In other texts (To Kill a Mockingbird, for instance) the whole point is that terrible things DID happen but the underlying theme is that that was wrong.

I don't sense that in OMAM. The story is essentially about George and Lennie and the destruction of their dream. That is what makes the role of women in particular in that novel abhorrent to me.

Yes, the social and historical context needs to be taught, but it is the sheer casualness of it in OMAM which makes it distasteful to me.

Woah salcz that is not what I was saying! I am not saying the text makes anyone racist or sexist, I am saying it has no place in our schools BECAUSE we do not tolerate racism or sexism.

I don't think it is acceptable (personally) to give young people the message that their gender or skin colour has no bearing on who they are or what they do, and then teach a text like this where such awful attitudes are inherent.