you just never know what you'll see in the papers...

Today, while reading "350 years of what the kids heard" by the NY Times, I ran across this paragraph:
Most early children's books were didactic and had a religious flavor, intended to civilize and save potential sinners - albeit upper-class ones, since they were more likely to be literate. As today, publishers were shrewd marketers of their wares. When John Newbery published "A Little Pretty Pocket-Book," in 1744, he included toys with the books - balls for boys, pincushions for girls.

Ok, so, am I the only one who notices that even then, maybe more so then than now, the "toys" for girls are all daily work items (like said pincushion), and the boys get a true toy? Why couldn't the girls get a ball too? Can they not bend and reach and grab and throw? What is up with that? I'm sorry, but I just don't believe in giving that stuff to little girls, unless they have plenty of true toys and are begging for a toy kitchen (highly unlikely if they have plenty of other fun stuff). Pincushions?! For gods sake! Let the kid have some fun!
Ok, we know I am still rebelling from doing housework as a kid, but come on! I know that people aren't any better today, they get little stoves and refrigerators for their girls and little workbenches for their boys, and freak out when he plays kitchen and she plays workshop! Coming from someone who thought barbie dolls were stupid and had much more fun playing with her Tonka dump trucks, I guess the consternation is understandable, but can't we all just get over it? Even McDonalds segregates their toys by "boy or girl" instead of just saying, do you want the doll or the truck?
OK, I'll try to step down off my soapbox, but it's hard to do!
Well, reading on we find:
Schools were established for the lower classes, and increased literacy created new markets for books. This was the golden age of children's literature, of Robert Louis Stevenson, Rudyard Kipling, Louisa May Alcott, Mark Twain and Lewis Carroll.
And we haven't seen their like since. I know that some adults today couldn't get through these books, but they were written for children. What does that say about our culture? Dumbing down, anyone? Now, I'm not saying there aren't any great authors today, just that there's not as much meat in children's books as there used to be. Yes, there's a wider range of subject matter, story genres, and formats, but is there any plot? Are the characters thinking on their own or reacting blindly? Are there any useful life experiences to be gotten from today's children's literature? I know there are some, somewhere, like Pullman's His Dark Materials series. Just wondering what you all think. Be glad to hear your thoughts on the subject! What would you consider to be the literature with a capital L for children today? What qualities make it Literature rather than just a story?
Oh, yes, and for more ranting and raving, this time by Edward Rothstein of the NYTimes, please read his article in Connections: "Reading kids books without the kids". It also refers to the current lack of substance in children's books, and raises the concern that the anthology fall prey to the typical problem involved in classroom discussion of literature: the trend to over analyze. Anyone taking a serious children's lit class that might use this anthology should already be aware of this problem from other literature courses, but there's always the few that won't. Well, I'm still going to buy it, but forewarned is forearmed. Thanks to J. Cummins from the Child_Lit list for alerting us all to these articles!