My odd choice against Harry Potter

I was very intrigued by the various posts and comments this week. I can relate to some of you because I also haven't read the Harry Potter series. Growing up, my parents never told me I wasn't allowed to read these books, it’s just that fantasy and magical books just don't interest me. Flying around on broomsticks and casting spells is just too far from real for me. My grandpa is and has been a magician since before I was born, thus my strange fault with accepting such ideas in writing baffles even myself.

Being able to perform slight of hand and visual illusions has changed my definition of magic. I’ve always seen magic as a performing art, so when irrational ideas of flying, spells, dragons, three-headed dogs, and self-moving staircases arise I’m almost instantly turned off by the text. Forcing your brain to think in ways and believe things you aren’t used to can be hard, especially for a slightly stubborn person like myself.

Chapter five in the course text, “The Pleasures of Children’s Literature,” includes the topic of book selections. The books I selected in my younger days weren’t dictated by my parents beliefs, I chose them because they were things I was interested in or because my teachers made me read them for school. My mom has read and loved each of the seven Harry Potter books but never forced me to read them.

I guess I prefer to read books that are more realistic and have distinct messages that relate to life experiences. I’m not saying that if there were a place to escape to like Hogwarts in the Harry Potter series I wouldn’t be on the first train out, assuming there’s room once the die-hards are aboard. But my mind has a hard time grasping those ideas knowing that they aren’t possible.

I’ve been extremely lucky to have the parents I do, that don’t force or prohibit their ideas and values upon me. Letting me grow and make my own decisions about what to read has shaped me into the person I am and what concepts I choose to wrap my mind around. I apologize to any Harry Potter or fantasy readers I may have offended, It just doesn’t interest me at all.

Ideologies are Necessary for Survival

One of the things that bothers me about The Pleasures of Children’s Literature is that it treats ideology as a cause of only evil things. Previous classes I have taken at MSU have done the same thing except it has been referred to as “social constructions,” which is essentially the same thing. I do not doubt that concepts such as racism which have been socially constructed have caused suffering for various people. However, imagine a world without any ideologies at all. According to dictionary.com, ideology is “the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.” (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ideology) A non-ideology world have no doctrine, no beliefs, no morals, and no right or wrong. A person could freely steal, rape, murder and whatever else he/she wished to do and no one would think it would be wrong. It would be anarchy. Try to get in the mindset of having no ideology and imagine what the world would be like. Are there any advantages to this kind of world? Is it even a possible future? Personally, I don’t think it is possible. The basic reason that an act has been deemed as wrong is because it is harmful to the self and/or to others. So a world without ideologies would be populated by people who do not care if others are harmed. It would even require lack of self preservation. This is because if individuals care about their own survival, they would thus find it useful to have some form of uniting for protection and forming some kind of governing system. This would of course require rules and ideologies. So a world without ideologies would contain people who did not care about themselves or others. It raises the question, if they don’t care about themselves, then why would they steal, rape, and murder? Perhaps the non-ideology world COULD theoretically exist or perhaps it is an oxymoron. Even animals have a sense of self-preservation and set up various rules for their cultures. Wolves, for instance, have ranks with leaders and behavior that is deemed desirable and undesirable within their packs. According to the above definition, this counts as an ideology. In the end, I do not find it possible for humanity as it is now to completely stop caring about themselves or others.

How does this affect our lives now? Assuming we need at least some ideologies to survive, we need to decide which ideologies to support in our jobs whether you’re becoming a teacher or an advertiser. I find it most logical to support the ideologies represented by one’s own country since I plan to work in a public school in the U.S. However, the currently established ideologies should not be taken for granted; they should always be analyzed for improvement. That is why I plan on teaching my students what the US values at the same encouraging them and teaching them how to constructively criticize.

Girls will be Girls and Boys will be Boys

I challenge the concept of completely eliminating gender stereotypes. I think that everyone should be treated equally and hired based on their abilities and experience. However, I do not think it is theoretically possible to get rid of gender differences. Most stereotypes originate from observations and/or patterns. The assumptions and stereotypes created based on these observations may be false. This is seen in the history of racial issues. Europeans had a concept of intelligence and civilized living, and Africans, Americans (natives of South, Middle, North), etc. ways of living defied their definitions. The observations of the Europeans were that they live in huts and wore barely anything. The assumption was that they are less intelligent and civilized because of it. I am not personally supporting the idea that one way is more “civilized” or better than another. I am simply making the point that the stereotype came from observations from the Europeans. The same thing happened with gender stereotypes. Assumptions and roles were created based on observations of biological differences. The difference between race and gender is that there IS a biological difference between males and females whereas there is no difference between races other than their skin pigmentation. Although we can probably minimize the stereotypes, there is nothing we can do about the biological differences. First of all, there are organ differences that we will never be rid of. Males and females cannot escape their bodies being identified as one or the other. Then, there are different amounts of hormones being pumped into our brains and throughout our bodies. These allegedly cause differing behaviors which I will not go into mostly because I think we should not use this as an excuse for actions. Plus, it is debatable as to how much it really affects us. Instead, I will focus on how the hormones affect the bodily appearance. Women end up with curvier hips, a different angled pelvis, and breasts. Even facial features tend to be different although I am not sure if I think this because of stereotypes or because it is actually true. Men end up with broader shoulders, bulkier muscles, an Adam’s apple, and deeper voices. So, men being generally stronger took on the role as leader which makes sense in a world in which the bigger and stronger win. These generalizations have been added to and compounded and exploded into the stereotypes that we know today. There are, of course, exceptions to the above statements: genetically altering our species so that we are all one gender and taking on a different form of reproduction; having surgery to alter one’s sex organs; and people who are born with ambiguous sex identities. Plus, these are the observations of patterns and thus only MOSTLY true. It is not 100% fact that a male will be stronger than a female, for example. This causes problems for those that do not fit the majority.

That is why I do not think that it is possible to entirely eliminate the gender roles. I, personally, have no problem with it as long as I am able to live the life I want to live. I also don’t think that gender differences should be something that is evil and “dangerous.” It is only dangerous when you look down upon a certain way of living as inferior and wrong.

Eliminating stereotypical literature = Eliminating Stereotypes?

In class we discussed and seemed to agree that often, books (and other media, for that matter) often perpetuate stereotypes and have the potential to send messages that may easily be interpreted in certain ways that may cause children to make generalizations or develop stereotypical understandings about the world.

However, as Sarah noted in her post, parents, teachers, siblings, and other role models can have a large impact and can ultimately affect how children view the world and develop their understandings of how society works.

As future teachers or parents, I feel that it is not our responsibility or even in our best interest to completely eliminate books such as Cinderella or the other stereotypical books we have discussed in class. These books seem to perpetuate the stereotypical roles of girls and boys, typically projecting females as nice, pretty, polite, well-mannered, etc.; while males were viewed as rough, masculine, heroes, etc. To me, rather than stripping children of these ideas and secluding these types of books from their literature, it would be more beneficial to introduce these books and integrate them with other books that confront and challenge these stereotypes. This would provide a true view of the world as the way it is and help the children understand that there are various types of roles for each gender.

For example, one could read the original Cinderella, then read the alternative book that we talked about in class where the opposite sort of event happens (the princess saves the prince and then rejects his offer for a date, etc). I think it's important to select literature that shows representations of both genders performing all types of roles and jobs. If children are introduced to a male playing a role such as a teacher, dancer, or nurse, or a female as a professional athlete, doctor, or CEO, and these are portrayed as normal, they will likely accept this with no problem.

I think that children growing up today actually will be better suited to reject stereotypes and accept individuals who may play different or rare roles because of the way society as a whole is becoming more accepting. For example, while it is still not the most common situation, it is becoming much more acceptable and "normal" for a dad to be a stay-at-home dad and a woman to be a CEO or manager of a business. If we can point these instances out to children, through books and in the real world, I think we can help dispel gender stereotypes and let children develop broad and accepting understandings of gender. As we have said, literature can have a huge impact on the way children understand themselves and their world. If we were to completely eliminate certain types of literature due to the fact that we believe they are perpetrating stereotypes, we would strip children of this important piece of knowledge. As long as parents, teachers, or other individuals can facilitate a discussion to help children understand that gender stereotypes are limiting and meaningless, I see no harm in exposing children to all types of literature (within good reason and judgment).