#VintageMagTweets come today from this fascinating New jersey analysis of reading books for children.

The original experiment took place in 1972, but there's an update in this 1975 edition.

The fact that the authors chose reading schemes to look at rather than general fiction for children is important, because kids couldn't *choose* these books. They were fed them regardless.

And here are the names of those involved. *tips hat*

Here's a boy having fun! Here's a girl doing housework!

Boys go on to have academic careers, while girls grow up to keep house.

In every scheme the same pattern was there: stories were mainly about boys and men. Girl readers were just expected to accept that male lives were more interesting and deserving of centre stage.

And of course it tells boys the same message.

17 real life women are worth reading about, versus 88 men.

And this is a good point. You'd think there'd be more learning from reading about a woman who's had to fight to get where she is because of her sex, than reading about a man who's faced no such issues.

Occupation-wise, what do the female characters get to do? Not as much as the male ones.

And even those female characters in jobs were circumscribed by stereotype.

Girl sits quiet and listless while boy is Active and Noisy.

Although, even while the girl is sitting there bored, she's still presented as nurturing.

In children's reading books, boy characters are consistently presented as cleverer and more ingenious.

Boys are four times better at persevering than girls.

Then again, boys don't have the distraction of keeping their dresses nice.

Male characters are more heroic.

Girls can sometimes be heroic, but mainly on a smaller, domestic scale.

I'll add some more to this thread on Sunday.

Here's a bit more of the thread about children's reading schemes and the messages they gave to boys and girls.

The signalling of adulthood: when a boy becomes a man, he kills a grizzly bear. When a girl becomes a woman, she makes a nice scarf for her brother.

Boys are depicted as enterprising, and acquirers of wealth.

In their role as apprentices, boys get a reward at the end. Girls do their apprenticeships for nothing.

Girls' only real option is to marry into wealth.

Girls allowed to compete half as often as boys. But not allowed to win much.

When girls do win, it's either a fluke or because a boy has taught her.

Boy characters go adventuring three times as much as girls.

Boy characters fantasize about limitless possibilities out in the world; girl characters fantasize about keeping house.

Girls aren't allowed to play unless they've done their chores.

Eew, a boy being creative. That's not right.

Here a girl is actually threatened with a curse for 'not being feminine enough'.

Boy characters get to steal and cheat, unpunished.

The illustrations say it all.

OK, I'll break there and add some more next week. x

Here's some more of the #VintageMagTweets thread about school reading books in America.

Girl characters play endlessly with dolls; mothers drift about "like ectoplasm".

We see this Be Docile message still being rammed down girls' throats, most obviously in the exhortations to DREAM that are written on their clothes, on adverts, on stationery.

In the reading scheme books, girls were habitually shown doing domestic chores where boys were not.

The girl character's role is to look on and admire the active boy.

The clear message being sent to children of both sexes was that girls were feeble and needed a boy to sort things out for them.

Remember, this is across a whole range of reading schemes, not just one set.

'One insists on serving the supper even though she's just saved a drowning man.'

It's our ladybrains. We're all programmed to do housework; we can't help it.

Ah, the old 'dirty dress' meme again.

Girl characters are consistently foolish and gullible, and if they suddenly aren't, the author must change their sex!

So these reading books - books which children were made to read - actually condoned the model of boys being mean to girls.

"The negative behaviour always goes unpunished." Why am I not surprised?

Actual lines (spoken by girl characters) from these reading books!

I'll add some more on Sunday.

I'll finish off this thread about children's reading schemes now.

More lines from these books showing how boys have contempt for girls, even when those girls are trying to help.

These books really made sure boys (and girls) were programmed to view girls as useless and inferior.

Boys protect frightened girls. And girls are always frightened of something or other.

And while girls are encouraged to be scared of everything, boys need to work on overcoming that emotion.

Girls actually standing on chairs because of a frog, while boys tackle buffalo stampedes.

Why have fun when you can be bored-but-pretty?

Boys get to rehearse exciting adult roles.

The numbers breakdown: boys get a choice of 147 different job possibilities, and girls get, er 26.

Girls imitate their mothers, who are always presented doing housework.

One mother in a story is too feeble to even get a ladder to her her son get down from a tree!

On the other hand, daddy is dynamic and fun.

Mothers in these stories mainly nag about keeping things clean and tidy.

I'm really sorry, I've run out of time because of a lovely phone call in the middle of this thread. I will definitely finish it next time!

Right, let's finish this thread about US reading schemes and harmful stereotyping.

Here are some of the sentences children were made to read.

"My girls are so stupid.""...boys are much braver than girls." As you can see, the bias crosses many different reading schemes

If you're interested in the stats behind the conclusions, here are the numbers. If they're hard to read on a small screen, the main takeaway is that stories are much much more likely to be about male characters than female.

Male versus female biographies.

Occupations of male characters versus female characters.

Half of the children reading those schemes will have been little girls. What message did it give them that their stories were of such little worth?