Plagued by reflecting the real world

There is a recent report out which examines whether gender stereotypes in children's books have changed between 1902 and 2000. The answer is no, there has been no material change in rendering of adult roles in children's books in that period. The report is discussed in Gender stereotypes plague children’s picture books by Tom Jacobs.

The article caught my attention given the headline laden with "plagued." What is the nature of the plague and why is it bad? I read the article to find what sort of numbers we are talking about. As often is the case, light on facts and heavy on prognosticating. Mercifully, there were a couple of nuggets.

Fathers, on the other hand, were “much more likely than mothers to participate in both physical and non-physical play.” And they were much more likely to be portrayed as breadwinners: 26.6 percent of fathers worked outside the home, compared to 5.6 percent of mothers.

No discussion of the definitions used (full time or part time, primary breadwinner or supplemental). Let's take these as full-time primary breadwinners. It would seem in children's world, only 32.2% of parents work (26.6 + 5.6) versus 96.3% of real world married-couple families (Bureau of Labor Statistics).

Again, assuming that we are talking about full time, sole breadwinners, then in children's world mothers are the breadwinner 17.4% of the time (5.6/32.2) and fathers are the sole breadwinners 82.6% of the time (26.6/32.2).

In the real world, 59% of all married-couple families, both parents work part or full time outside the home. However, of those where there is a sole breadwinner (mother works, not father or father works but not mother), in those cases (37% of all married-couple families) then, interestingly, 82.7% of the time it is the father who is working and 17.3% of the time it is the mother who is working - virtually identical to what is represented in children's books.

Now this analysis circumvents all the complexities of single parent families, families with no one working, and the subtleties of who is the primary breadwinner (and to what degree) in families where both parents work.

However, the numbers from this simplistic analysis are also consistent with the results from Pew Research's most recent survey indicating that

Of all households with children younger than 18, the share of married mothers who out-earn their husbands has gone up from 4% in 1960 to 15% in 2011, nearly a fourfold increase.

So again, empirical data says 15% of women are the primary breadwinner in married couples whereas children's books represent women as being a breadwinner 17.3% of the time.

What this simple look at the numbers seems to indicate though is two things. 1) Children's books woefully underrepresent the role of gainful employment. 2) Children's books represent the distribution of primary breadwinners accurately to within 0.1%.

Tom Jacobs seems completely unfazed by the dearth of work in children's books since that is never mentioned in his article. The problem for Jacobs seems not so much to be that children's books are not reflecting the real world of gender division of labor, but rather that it does not reflect the world as he wishes it to be, i.e. that men and women work in equal numbers. That is the plague. It is a classic example of 'is versus ought', descriptive versus prescriptive.

Now, there are all sorts of interesting arguments that can be had about whether there is in fact a right answer to the question of what the division of labor ought to be. But in a world predicated on individual agency and freedom of choice, the answer is what it is regardless of one's preferences. So if we accept people's choices as the norm, then according to Pew Research, in married families with children under 18, we would expect children to see women as the primary breadwinner 15% of the time whereas men would be the primary breadwinner 85% of the time.

I have not paid $40 to get the original study where the research might provide better nuance, but from the representation by Jacobs, it seems like there is no there there.

It seems to me that what this most highlights though is the ridiculousness and dishonesty of agenda driven analysis. The social structure of the US is far more complicated than can be captured in simplistic content surveys. What all of the above omits are the intertwining issues of class and race and family structure and income. So, for example, what the Pew Research also indicates, is that women are the primary breadwinners in 40% of all households. Why so high? What is the disconnect with the figures we were just discussing where males are the primary breadwinner 85% of the time? Well, most of those households with women as the primary breadwinner are single mother homes. And are in poverty. And are minority.

These complexities are omitted from the prescriptive analyses in order to arrive at a preferred answer. These complexities are also substantially omitted in children's books as well. As discussed elsewhere, from all the numerical analysis I have seen, there is little correspondence between the world of children's books and the real world in terms of race, ethnicity, religion, class, urbanity, gender, family structure, orientation, education attainment, etc.. Mostly what it reflects are the issues and concerns of the book writing and book reading populace which tend to be whiter, upper middle class, urban/suburban, secular, straight, traditional family structure, college educated, professional.

The issue is not whether that is good or bad. It is the outcome of autonomous agents making free decisions.

But let me return to what seems to me to be the most ignored issue of all and the contradiction which seems to undermine the whole argument. If we grant that children's books have some sort of prescriptive influence on children's values and views (the necessary predicate to being concerned about gender representation) then isn't the greatest issue not the prescriptive versus descriptive division of labor but rather - HARDLY ANYONE IS WORKING!

If that concern isn't warranted, then it must follow that the determinative influence on children of represented gender stereotypes can't be a real issue either.