In the 21st century, where societies are striving towards gender equality, any form of expression that goes against this agenda would be frowned upon. Therefore, in the article, “The Anti-Grimm” (The Economist, 2012) the author, A.C., has explicitly shown her distaste for the incessantly misogynistic fairy tales written by the Grimm brothers and raised objections against its exposure to children today.
In contrast to her disapproval of Grimms’ tales, the author compliments a collection of fairy tales by Franz Xaver Von Schönwerth. She strongly argues that Schönwerth’s tales are original and promote gender equality thus making it a more relevant and suitable read than Grimms’ tales for the current young generation.
I acknowledge that the author has provided substantial evidence to strongly support her claim that the Grimm’s tales are gender biased. However, the author’s thesis is severely slanted, towards the greater relevance and suitability of Schönwerth’s tales for children today, without appropriate reasons.
The author has consistently surfaced the sexism ingrained in Grimm’s Tales. Besides her personal observations, she included the credible opinions of a fairy tale expert, Maria Tatar and other folklorists who agreed that “Grimms were selective in terms of gender.” (2012, para.7) However, based on this line of reasoning, the author has erroneously concluded that Schönwerth’s tales provide “an-equal opportunity world” (2012, para.3) since these tales have simply performed gender role reversals. In both fairy tales, the story lines are identical with the sole exception in the preferred gender. As Schönwerth’s tales are positively skewed to the girls, these tales do not eradicate the worrying effects of gender discrimination on children but rather shifts the area of concern from girls to boys. Therefore, if gender inequality is a factor that determines the suitability of fairy tales for children, Schönwerth’s tales would be as equally a misfit as...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document