Gender Roles in Books

Dani257 · #1 06-07-2001, 05:07 PM

I'm taking a course this summer (Started today, in fact) on Children's Literature and Feminist Theory. In one of the books we're reading, a critic said that Charlotte Doyle was really a boy masquerading as a girl. Meaning, they just stuck a girl's name on an essentially male character. For those who don't know, 'The True Confessions of Charlotte Doyle' by Avi, is a story about a young Victorian girl, who through a course of events ends up joining the crew of a ship, working, and ends up accused of murder. I love this book.

Now, I personally don't think the book is so unrealistic. Sure, it isn't what the typical girl would have done back then, but there are exceptions to every rule. Plus, I think they did a good job of having her grow from a typical Victorian girl, who knew 'her place' to someone who carved out a new identity for herself.

So, for those of you who've read it, do you think Charlotte was a real girl? And do you think there are books that just tack on girl identities to boy traits, in order to be PC?

jsgoddess · #2 06-07-2001, 08:46 PM

I guess it depends if you believe in such a thing as "male traits."

If you don't, and I guess I don't, then a female character can't have male traits (mental or emotional traits, that is, since she could certainly have male physical traits). She can have "stereotypical" male traits, but that's not the same thing.

I think.

Julie

Dani257 · #3 06-07-2001, 09:07 PM

The book also mentioned that even though people should want to write books about strong girls, they shouldn't lose their femininity.

I personally think there are differences in the sexes, besides the physical ones. But, I don't think that means that everyone has to follow a rigid set of rules as to what is masculine or feminine. Human beings are too complex

**hadassahchana**[$] · #4 06-08-2001, 05:53 PM

I read it, and I mostly agree with the criticism. I thought that it suffered from the same problems as 'The Shakespeare Stealer', in that the girls portrayed just weren't realistc given the time period. Yes, it would have been nice if girls had the same opportunities as boys- but the sad fact is, they didn't. Rewriting history to indicate otherwise is unfair to both boys and girls, IMO.

Cindy

Dani257 · #5 06-08-2001, 09:18 PM

I disagree. (Hey, a debate here!) I think if the book had said it was normal for girls in that time to do what Charlotte did, it would have been unrealistic. Sure, there is somewhat of a fantasy element, but I don't think it's completely off the wall. After all, women disguised themselves and went to war, and they had female pirates. I'm not saying that you should use those admitedly rare examples to make all 19th century girls act in ways they wouldn't. But, I'm guessing that Avi knew his character well enough that he could put her in an unusual role.

Actually, criticizing it on a historical level is pretty valid. But, I think the main objection in the book I read was more that Charlotte didn't act like a girl of any era. That's what really bothered me. I probably fit in all the stereotypical 'female' attitudes, but that doesn't mean I don't think other girls or women might not do the complete opposite.

mtbat · #6 06-09-2001, 12:09 AM

I think that there can be an exeption to any rule-women, for the most part acted a certain way back then-BUT not all of them. Without exceptions, there wouldn't have been a Susan B. Anthony ect-

I can't recall any names-but their were several women who dressed up as boys and served their countries during both the revolutionary and civil wars-

Now, if a real life woman could do this-Yes, I could belive that girl in the story(which sounds like one I would enjoy-I'll have to check it out)

Fridai

Redlass · #7 06-12-2001, 01:46 PM

I've always wondered if women were really all that different 500 years ago than they are now. We have so few records that tell us what women were like, and most of the ones we do have were written by men.

I do get annoyed when I see 20th/21st century attitudes imposed on medieval characters, yet I also question how much the human spirit has really changed over the centuries. Perhaps women were much more assertive than we think they were--after all, noblewomen at the very least were in charge of the castle when menfolk were called away to war, to hunt, or to attend upon the monarch. They had huge households to manage and they were often very political.

So what defines feminine? Every trait that I've come up with in the past few minutes to try to assign to one gender or another, I can think of exceptions to.