Should UK Children’s Books Be Non-Gender Specific


Publishing Perspectives Article: March 19 2014: 

Dennis Abrams



The Guardianreports that “a national campaign to stop children’s books being labeled as ‘for boys’ or ‘for girls’ has won the support of Britain’s largest specialist bookseller Waterstones, as well as children’s laureate Malorie Blackman, poet laureate Carol Ann Duffy, Philip Pullman and a handful of publishers.”

The campaign is called Let Books be Books, and aims to put pressure on retailers as well as publishers not to market children’s books that promote “limiting gender stereotypes.”

In just one week since the campaign’s launch, it has received the support of publishers Parragon and Usborne.

Philip Pullman, author of the His Dark Materials trilogy said: “I’m against anything from age-ranging top inking and blueing, whose effect is to shut the door in the face of children who might enjoy coming in. No publisher should announce on the cover of any book the sort of readers the book would prefer. Let the readers decide for themselves.”

And author Laura Dockrill told the Guardian that the project as an “urgent campaign that everybody need to get behind.”

“Children should have the right to choose their own literature and we should be supporting them to carve their paths of interests instead of narrowing them. It is ignorant, old fashioned and ugly to isolate anybody from the beautiful freedom and escapism of the mind that reading for pleasure brings,” she said.

A spokesman from Waterstones told the paper, “Gender-specific displays are a definite ‘no’…if a shop ever goes off-piste and does one we soon find about it and get it removed…There’s no need for them and there are far more intelligent ways to display books.”

Among the titles the campaign is attacking are books such as “Usborne’s Illustrated Classics for Boys, described by the publisher as ‘a collection of stories of action, adventure and daring-do [sic] suitable for boys,’ while its Illustrated Stories for Girls contains ‘brand new stories about mermaids, fairies, princesses and dolls.’”

The publisher told The Guardian that it has “no plans to produce any titles labeled ‘for girls’ or ‘for boys’ in the future,” while Parragon told the campaign that “feedback on gender-specific titles is important to us” and “we have no plans to create new titles referring to boy/girl in the UK.”

In addition, Katy Guest, the literary editor for the Independent on Sunday has vowed not to review any gender stereotyped books, writing:

“…I promise now that the newspaper and this website will not be reviewing any book which is explicitly aimed at just girls, or just boys. Nor will The Independent’s book section. And nor will the children’s book blog at Independent.co.uk. Any Girls’ Book of Boring Princesses will to straight into the recycling pile along with every Great Big Book of Snot for Boys. If you are a publisher with enough faith in your new book that you think it will appeal to all children, we’ll be very happy to hear from you. But the next Harry Potter or Katniss Everdeen will not come in glittery pink covers. So we’d thank you not to send us such books at all.”

But taking the other side, also in the Independent, Michael O’Mara, whose company owns children’s publisher Buster Books, defended selling gender-specific titles such as The Beautiful Girls’ Colouring Book and The Brilliant Boys’ Colouring Book, saying that they are easier to sell than unisex editions.

“It is a fact of life how a very large percentage of people shop when buying for kids, do it by sex. We know for a fact that when they are shopping on Amazon, they quite often type in ‘books for boys’ and ‘books for girls,’ O’Mara told TheIndependent.

“All boys don’t like one thing and all girls the other, but the fact is lots of boys like the same things and lots of girls like the same things. We can’t ignore the fact that they are definitely different.”

Responding to the Let Books Be Books campaign, O’Mara, a father of three, called it a “knee-jerk” reaction. “The proof,” he said, “is in the pudding.” “Our two best children books ever are The Boys’ Book and The Girls’ Book. The boys’ one included things like how to make a bow and arrow and how to play certain sports and you’d get things about style and how to look cool in the girl’s book. 2,000 people signed the petition [in the first day], but we sold 500,000 copies of The Girls’ Book. These statistics tell me I’m going in the right direction.”

He also defended his position by noting that nearly 90% of the books his company publishers are not “divided by gender, and that it is, in fact, mostly women who work in the children’s book division. “We would never publish a book that demeaned one sex or the other.”

In response, Megan Perryman from Let Toys Be Toys told the Independent, “By marketing books specifically at boys or girls, you halve your readership and alienate the many children who do not fit into neat boy/girl boxes.”

“We would be very surprised if evidence showed that gendered titles are more profitable, and we certainly haven’t seen this. Indeed, some of the best-selling children’s books don’t have gendered covers at all.”

Perryman also told the Guardian that while she is pleased with the response so far, that the campaign would “continue to approach those publishers and retailers, such as Buster Books and WHSmith, who persist in marketing books in this way,” adding that “this is not about banning books. This is about letting books speak for themselves without labels indicating who can read them.”


Although not a journal this is an interesting piece and just shows how many people are interested in this topic. The fact that so many children’s authors are happy to back this campaign is a testament to how the future of children’s writing should be. Possibly this points out that it is not the writers who are to blame however and it more to do with how the stories are advertised and displayed in store. The age old saying of not judging a book by it’s cover is paramount here; is the illustrators to blame more so than the writer? The front cover covered in ‘girlish’ flowers, pink icing and lots of glitter can only be assumed to attract the female population.

Or is it society for putting the colour pink and glitter in line with femininity? Although a story may have a female lead; it does not mean that this is aimed solely at girls. By creating a weaker image of women by prettifying the books are we sending the wrong image? Yes.

But is this due to the advertising, the illustrator, the story or just society?

This is such a tough one. An illustrator will work on the story to create the images as well as what the marketing company want. If the story is not gender equal and is too extreme in either gender, then an illustrator will work with this to create an appropriate representation.



One thought on “Should UK Children’s Books Be Non-Gender Specific

  1. Excuse me? First off, I believe for a fact that girls and boys are different. Now, yes, I enjoy reading some of my brother’s books too. But still, girls are girls and they enjoy reading different things than boys. So naturally, you should label a book as a girl’s book (at least if it’s an activity book, beyond there I have no problem). Boys don’t want to read what girls do and vice versa. Should the case arise that they do, then let them! Simple as that! No one has the right to think it odd if they want to. Instead of telling everyone to stop labeling books girl and boy books, why don’t you just adapt yourselves to the condition that some boys and girls don’t mind (very rarely and usually in the case of girls) other kids books?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s