is it true that some of Enid Blyton's books were sexist?

Question

Someone just told me and i don't seem to believe it, i loved reading the books as a little girl. Would anyone know which books are being referred to, that is, if all that is true?

Answer 1

Yes they have been labelled sexist.
You now have a choice.
Do you go along with someone else's label and therefore, by implication, their undeclared political agenda?
Taking this to its conclusion you really ought to empty the libraries of Enid's books [and all the others that fall foul of this diktat] and burn them.
Since it is a "good thing" to have books, however, you will have to then re-write some of them. These new authors would have to undergo stringent education of course and their work submitted to various committees to ensure all unsound material is eliminated.
Private book collections would also have to come under some sort of scrutiny eventually to stop a black market in forbidden materials appearing.
Since people might object to their private property being confiscated in this way armed police might have to accompany the official censor in his duties.
It might be necessary "in extremis" to publicly hang a few hoarders just to set an example.
Or do you go along with your own judgement, ignore the "sexist" label and tell the politically correct brigade to piss off and write their own bloody books instead of burning other peoples?
Your choice ... I've made mine!

Answer 2

I am introducing my 6 yr olds to the Famous Five series over the summer holidays and I have to say, yes, they would be considered sexist and there are bits here and there which annoy me - boys being more capable than girls, the girl being the weaker swimmer and more afraid of the storm, the one strong girl being pretty much portrayed as wanting desperately to be a boy and insisting on having a boys name.

That said, I know girls just like these girls. Not in modern literature but in real life. I also know boys not so different from the girls too and I dont see characters reflecting them in any childrens literature anywhere!!

The style of writing and language is a bit dated but the stories are so good I find my children are loving them and they dont seem to be aware of the stuff we adults think are problems.

Answer 3

You've had the long answer, now the precis. In the Famous Five, George had decidedly lesbian tendencies and the younger boy - forget his name - was a bit of a wimp. The younger girl was all twinsets and pearls, and Julian was going to lead the country one day. That's stereotyping, not sexist. She did however appeal mainly to the middle to upper-middle classes. 'Oh, gosh George, I do believe you're right!' exclaimed Julian.
Now Noddy is a completely different story. Who knows what went on between Noddy and Big-Ears? Rumours were rife. Pity the paparazzi weren't up to steam at the time.

Answer 4

A while ago some one said that Noddy and Big Ears were gay and a lot of her girls are tom boys but its like anything you can think what you like. As long as you enjoy the books it doesn't matter and just think of all the books she sold so I don't supposed she would be worried what people sail.
Anyone who is successful will eventually have something not nice said about them.

Answer 5

The books are very much of their time, particularly the 1950s titles. They present a none-too-subtle version of Britain's class system - i.e. "rough" versus "well-behaved". Undoubtedly present are some stereotypes regarding gender. Some argue, from a current perspective, that the portrayal of golliwogs, amongst others, was racist. On the other hand, the Famous Five displayed a remarkably modern equality of teamwork between the sexes, and the truth is that only one golliwog ever appeared as the villain, and in just one Noddy book, while elsewhere in her fantasy works golliwogs appeared as the heroes.

It was frequently reported, in the 1950s and also from the 1980s onwards, that various children's libraries removed some of Blyton's works from the shelves. The history of such 'Blyton bans' is confused. Some librarians certainly at times felt that Blyton's restricted use of language, a conscious product of her teaching background, militated against appreciation of more literary qualities. There was some precedent, in the treatment of L. Frank Baum's Oz books (and the many sequels, by others) by librarians in the U.S. in the 1930s.

Much play has been made of naive language permitting double entendre (especially the opportunity for the reader to imagine sexual connotations), clearly not intended by the author. Examples cited include Noddy "jumping into bed" with Big Ears, another character, and the inclusion in the "Magic Faraway Tree" series of characters called Dick and Fanny (changed to "Rick" and "Frannie" in modern reprints). However, this area is subject to urban myths and the carefree retelling in newspapers of anecdotes as factual (recycling the old press cuttings, in fact) making it difficult to discern the truth.

A more careful account of anti-Blyton attacks is given in Chapter 4 of Robert Druce's This Day Our Daily Fictions. The British Journal of Education in 1955 carried a piece by Janice Dohn, an American children's librarian, considering Blyton's writing together with authors of formula fiction, and making negative comments about Blyton's devices and tone. A 1958 article in Encounter by Colin Welch, directed against the Noddy character, was reprinted in a New Zealand librarians' periodical. This gave rise to the first rumour of a New Zealand 'library ban' on Blyton's books, a recurrent press canard. Policy on buying and stocking Blyton's books by British public libraries drew attention in newspaper reports from the early 1960s to the end of the 1970s, as local decisions were made by a London borough, Birmingham, Nottingham and other central libraries. There is no evidence that her books' popularity ever suffered. She was defended by populist journalists, and others; left-of-centre newspapers ran articles condemning her work, with a piece in 1966 in The Guardian claiming that Blyton wrote more insidiously dangerous right-wing literature than that published by British fascist groups.

Modern reprints of some books have had changes made (such as the replacement of golliwogs with teddy bears). This is the publishers' reaction to contemporary attitudes on racial stereotypes, and probably enforced by market conditions and pressure groups. It has itself drawn criticism from those adults who view it as tampering with an important piece of the history of children's literature. The Druce book brings up a single case of a story, The Little Black Doll, which could be interpreted as a racist message (the doll wanted to be pink) and which was turned on its head in a reprint.

Answer 6

I too loved them as a little girl and recently rebought a few off ebay to read to my little girl (Amelia Jane and mr Twiddle lol)
I found them really hard to reread as they did come across as sexist and racist in parts but I don't think it was intended as when she wrote them it was usual to call things womens work and talk about golliwogs.
take care♥

Answer 7

'That's the sort of silly question a girl would ask' snorted Julian
'Woof Woof' agreed Timmy

Answer 8

No the claim was racist actually. The golly wogs were the naughty characters who were always "mugging" the other characters.
FACT

Answer 9

No, they were just products of their time, as was their author.

Answer 10

I guess