cliterature

In a 1944 book ‘Women and Men’ Amram Scheinfeld wrote:

“It is no accident … that women have been most outstandingly successful in the theater and in fields of writing where they could best be themselves, whereas they may have fallen short in music, painting, and sculpture because in considerable measure they have tried to compose, paint and sculpt in a man’s way.”

One things that jumps out of this excerpt for me is that writing is identified as being feminine.  While the form of the novel was created largely by and for women, the edifices of literature consist of the usual array of DWG (dead white guys).  Growing up, I experienced literature as approximately gender-neutral, being exposed to an array of male and female authors (but perhaps with an emphasis on the males when to came to formal education).

The media and certain organisations certainly seem to depict the relative lack of interest in reading and writing on the part of boys as a something of a modern phenomenon–or at least a worsening one.  On the flip side of the old approval of girls doing girly things, like writing–we now have a modern neurosis that we are making boys do girly things… like reading books with female main characters (girl  reading about boys apparently troubles nobody, including the girls).

In school curriculums there are apparently: “Few strong and active male role models can be found as lead characters. Gone are the inspiring biographies of the most important American presidents, inventors, scientists and entrepreneurs. No military valor, no high adventure.” [Washington Post]

What is interesting to me is that reading and writing may be growing into one of the few abilities that is identifiably feminine according to our modern culture, but universally considered highly admirable and something boys should be encouraged to do.  But is this seen as a drive to make boys more ‘feminine’?  No, it is seen as a need for literature that is more butch.

Interesting, isn’t it, that the opposite gender gap in mathematics is seen as due to women being unmotivated, having an irrational fear of maths, lacking confidence, needing extra time and not having high career aspirations.  Not, for example, the overly butch way in which mathematics is often taught.  (That is, with an emphasis on qualities not mechansims; what numbers are rather than what numbers do).

It always seems that when males are seen as under-performing in an discipline, the discipline is obviously flawed and not sufficiently welcoming/inclusive to them–when females are under-performing in a discipline it is because they lack drive and ambition–or basic cognitive aptitude.

Interestingly, in societies where genders are more equal, the female math disadvantage gets smaller, and the female reading advantage gets larger.  Perhaps because this so called-equality consists of women feeling free to be as conventionally feminine or masculine as they like–but even in ostensibly egalitarian cultures a man willing to act in conventionally feminine way remains something of a minority (i.e. plenty of girls in pants, not so many men in skirts–plenty of girls reading books with male heroes, no so much of the reverse).

I think that ultimately butching up literature will only make up so much of the difference because both of these ‘gaps’ have elements of both being held back by outside forces and holding ourselves back.  And we need to consider both aspect no matter which gender or which discipline is being discussed.

Meanwhile we blame a failed woman sculptor for trying to do it like a man, and we pity a boy who is being asked to read like a girl (while 7/10 of our best paid authors are still men)–and apparently never notice the double standards still running rife on both sides of the issue.  When we frame the two problems in similar, balanced way we may finally be ready to solve them.  

Trackback URI | Comments RSS