1

The Female Sex in English Textbook Marigold for First Standard Students of CBSC Syllabus
Dr. B.V.RamaPrasad Associate Professor Department of Postgraduate Studies in English Kuvempu University Shankaraghatta Shivamogga

The aim of this paper is to analyze the English textbook Marigold (MG) for 1st standard students prepared by NCERT. The paper tries to examine whether gender bias exists in the textbook. The paper first places the textbook in the context of policies related to the curriculum by NCERT as outlined in National Curriculum Framework 2005(NCF 05). Then it explains the criteria used to examine the gender bias in MG, and proceeds to analyze MG. To begin with, however, we should remember that textbooks are only one of the means through which gender stereotyping is done in the classrooms. The wider curriculum, the classroom atmosphere, the actual activities assigned by the teacher in the classroom, the uniforms prescribed, etc play a role in the construction of gender. However, by looking at the textbooks and modifying them to accommodate concerns about gender stereotyping, some step towards achieving gender equality can be taken. (See Blumberg, 4) At the top of the tree, we have the policy makers, and at the bottom of the tree we have the teachers who teach in the class room. In between, we have the textbook committee. The policymakers have tried to include the issues of gender in the National

2 Curriculum Framework, 2005. For example, Gender justice must inform all sectors of the social sciences (ix); specific measures are needed to inculcate greater selfawareness among boys regarding their behaviour towards girls (103). However, gender does not find a place in the aims of English Language Education (see appendix 1, summary, Language, pg 127). But The Position Paper of National Focus Group on Gender Issues in Education makes strong recommendations about gender issues in Language classrooms (67-71), though there are no specific recommendations regarding textbook content. The syllabus framework (NCERT, 2006) also incorporates gender issues. See, for example, The proposed syllabus tends to integrate the concerns related to environment, gender, peace, health, work and arts (v); It is extremely important that textbook writers and teachers begin to appreciate that the passive and deferential roles generally assigned to women are socio-culturally constructed and need to be destroyed as quickly as possible. Voices of women in all their glory need to find a prominent place in our textbooks and teaching strategies (5); If we wish that our dream of a democratic society should become a reality, we must make every effort to eliminate gendered construction of knowledge (60). Though here again there are no specific suggestions to the textbook writers, nor are gender issues included in aims and objectives or in attitudes to be nurtured (see 5-8, and 60-62). We will now deal with the methods used in this paper to analyze the textbook MG. The paper has drawn insights from some other works done in this area (Blumberg, Kenyan & Fakhar-ud-din, Bahuruddin et all). Keeping in mind the length of this paper, we will be able to use only some of the criteria used by the above works. We will analyze the textbook in terms of-

3 a. The number of boy and girl characters in the lessons b. The number of male and female species of animals in the lessons c. The role (active/passive)and the locale (indoor, outdoor) of the boys and the girls in the lessons d. The number of boy and girl characters in the illustrations e. The role (active/passive)and the locale (indoor, outdoor) of the boys and the girls in the illustrations The analysis of the lessons The textbook contains ten units, each comprising of two lessons, either prose or poetry. Let us first look at the number of boys and girls as characters in the lessons. Out of the ten child characters in the lessons, six are boys and four are girls. This 60-40 percentage need not be treated as evidence of gender bias as ten is a very small number to make judgment and the difference would have been significant if it was like 80-20. In terms of locale, out of six boys three are indoor, two outdoor and one boy moves from indoor to outdoor. Among four girls, two are outdoor, one indoor, and one moves from indoor to outdoor. Here again there does not seem to visible gender bias. In terms of the activities also we do not find gender bias. Among the girls, we have swinging, going in merry-go-round, learning to draw, watching a rainbow and painting it: among boys, we have drying one self after the bath, watching a bird, sitting below a tree, making a kite, and watching superman. We may say here that boys are at a disadvantage because only two boys are actually doing something whereas four are in a

4 passive role (for the purposes of this paper let us assume that sitting and thinking is a passive activity!), where as all the four girls are actively doing something. However, we should notice one significant thing here. There is an absence of the domestic in these lessons. Once a child is shown with a family member, (unit 5, Circle, a girl learning to draw from grandmother); and there is one lesson in which all the family members are sitting (unit 6, Our Tree, where father, mother, two sons and a daughter are eating mango). Out of eleven lessons with child characters, eight show children being on their own, one shows a child watching the superman and only two have families in them. Even when the children are in the house, there is an absence of the family. The activities of the children also show a similar pattern. Except for one activity where a boy dries himself after the bath, all other activities can be described as recreational activities. There are no community activities and no domestic activities. This probably reflects one of the dangers when we try to include more women in public spaces in the textbooks; the traditional fields of the home, and the activities like nurturing associated with women may become neglected and the so called masculine spaces and activities may dominate the content of the textbook. In terms of the animal characters used in the textbook, the traditional unmarking for the masculine is evident. Of the fourteen animal characters used, twelve are male with the pronoun he used with them. Only a turtle and a mosquito are unspecified for gender. Even a non-animate character like the straw is masculine, where as a beautiful kite that a boy is making is referred to as she! Thus no conscious effort is made to change the stories to address gender issues.

5 The Illustrations In illustrations accompanying the lessons we will look at illustrations for the lessons, the illustrations accompanying the exercises, and the side pictures next to the instructions in the exercises. We will ignore all illustrations that are limited by the content of the lesson, i.e. if a lesson has a boy as character, we will ignore the illustration of the boy because that is specified by the lesson itself. We will only look at those illustrations where the choice is independent of the content. The very noticeable thing about the illustrations is that all the pictures accompanying instruction for teacher have female teachers. The side pictures accompanying instructions for the exercises also show a gender bias. For example, in unit one, lesson Three Little Pigs, we have instructions like Lets Read, Say Aloud etc. Out of the nine pictures accompanying these instructions, seven are boys, one a girl and in one case it is difficult to specify. In terms of the characters in all illustrations, forty three are boys and twenty eight girls. This percentage of 61-39 in favour of boys is significant because we are dealing with a bigger number here. In terms of the locale we again see the dominance of the outer space. For boys in 36 cases where the locale could be specified, seven were indoor and 29 outdoor, with the percentage 19-81 in favour of the outdoor. For girls, in 22 cases where locale could be specified, three were indoor and 19 outdoor with a percentage of 14-86 in favour of the outdoor. But with respect to activities, boys seem to have more active roles compared to girls. Out of the 31 activities that could be specified as active or passive for the boys, 24 were active and 7 passive, with a percentage of 77-23 in favour of the active. Of the 18

6 activities for girls, only six were active and 12 passive, with a percentage of 33-67 in favour of the passive. Some typical illustrations where boys and girls are together show the girl in a secondary position. The boy takes the fruit from the basket, the girl receives it from her mother; the boy is flying a kite and the girl is helping with the thread; the boy has climbed the tree and the girl is receiving the fruits. In a fair, the boys outnumber the girls by 6-3 (54). On a merry-go-round, boys outnumber the girls by 5-2 (55). Thus there seems to be gender bias in illustrations. There are some particular cases of obvious gender bias. In page 112, a list of professions is given. Among the 10 professions, seven are illustrated with male figures, one-that of the astronaut- is unspecified, and two-a doctor and a teacher- are shown as women. There is no reason why a farmer, a dentist or an artist can not be illustrated with female characters. Similarly on page 17, we have the question Do you wear these things? and all the items shown can be worn by either a boy or a girl, but there are no girl specific items. We have a shirt, but no skirt. To conclude, the textbook MG shows some awareness of gender issues. The number and the role of characters in the lessons do not show gender bias, though there is a neglect of the domestic. The animal characters tend to be male by an overwhelming percentage. In the illustrations, there is an obvious gender bias both in terms of the role and the number of boys and girls.

7 Works Cited Baharuddin, Jamila Hani et all. Linguistic Sexism and Gender Role Stereotyping in Primary School Science Textbooks of Qatar SoLLs.INTEC 2011 Proceedings 1. Blumberg, Rae Lesser. Gender Bias in Textbooks: A Hidden Obstacle on the Road to Gender Equality in Education Paper commissioned for the EFA Global Monitoring Report 2008, Education for All by 2015: 2007 Mirza Dr. Munawar. Gender Analysis of School Curriculum and Text Books UNESCO, Islamabad, 2004