![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ljwritesFollowing on the discussion of the highly rapey Sky Maiden and Woodsman story, I looked through my niece's copy to see it for myself. It was just a standard telling, but there was a page at the end of the book talking about the "lessons" for children. I read it, wondering if it put the problematic elements of the story in perspective.
I don't have the book with me anymore, but here's the general gist of the note:
How about... NO?
This was literally it, the adapter's summation of the story and the lesson to be learned. No mention that the celestial maiden--who ran like hell the first chance she got--might be a person with agency whose opinion mattered. No mention of the fact that the deer was advocating straight up imprisonment and hostage-taking when it told its "kind-hearted" benefactor to a) deprive a woman of her means of leaving, and b) keep it from her until she had the requisite number of children.
I had thought the note, which was aimed at children, might at least address the fact that it is in no way acceptable or okay for someone to pressure you or take away your choices just because they want you. Instead, the marriage was the result of a kind heart and a good deed? WTF? And may I remind you of the obvious, that half the children being read this story by adults that they trust are girls, like my niece. This is what they get told, that a woman is a reward a man deserves for a good deed, regardless of her own wishes?
At least the story itself gives the sky woman agency, showing that she is not the content bride her abuser would have her be. The note to kids at the end, on the other hand, entirely relegates her to the status of an object, not an agent, and it addresses this "life lesson" to children.
It's not like awareness of the abuse angle in the Sky Maiden and the Woodsman is new in any way. I read a book by a male folklorist, published years ago, that discusses it as an escape story. (He also made the observation that no number of children would have deterred the woman from going--she'd have wound her legs around a third, carried a fourth on her shoulders, held on to swaddling clothes with her teeth, anything.) I'm positive that literary and scholarly discussions are at least decades old. There is no excuse, none, for erasing that aspect of the story, for erasing the woman as a person.
This is just one book among thousands, of course, and it does not by itself create culture. I wouldn't even care if it weren't part of a consistent message we are bombarded with, over and over from all directions. There is no need to censor the media we consume, but there is a need to question them. The only harm is in pretending that stories told to children are apolitical, because acceptance of the status quo as "harmless" is itself political.
I don't have the book with me anymore, but here's the general gist of the note:
As you can see, children, the woodsman got to marry his wife because he did a good deed in saving the hunted deer. This happens a lot in the stories passed down from our ancestors, how important it is to have a kind heart. Truly a value to live by!
How about... NO?
This was literally it, the adapter's summation of the story and the lesson to be learned. No mention that the celestial maiden--who ran like hell the first chance she got--might be a person with agency whose opinion mattered. No mention of the fact that the deer was advocating straight up imprisonment and hostage-taking when it told its "kind-hearted" benefactor to a) deprive a woman of her means of leaving, and b) keep it from her until she had the requisite number of children.
I had thought the note, which was aimed at children, might at least address the fact that it is in no way acceptable or okay for someone to pressure you or take away your choices just because they want you. Instead, the marriage was the result of a kind heart and a good deed? WTF? And may I remind you of the obvious, that half the children being read this story by adults that they trust are girls, like my niece. This is what they get told, that a woman is a reward a man deserves for a good deed, regardless of her own wishes?
At least the story itself gives the sky woman agency, showing that she is not the content bride her abuser would have her be. The note to kids at the end, on the other hand, entirely relegates her to the status of an object, not an agent, and it addresses this "life lesson" to children.
It's not like awareness of the abuse angle in the Sky Maiden and the Woodsman is new in any way. I read a book by a male folklorist, published years ago, that discusses it as an escape story. (He also made the observation that no number of children would have deterred the woman from going--she'd have wound her legs around a third, carried a fourth on her shoulders, held on to swaddling clothes with her teeth, anything.) I'm positive that literary and scholarly discussions are at least decades old. There is no excuse, none, for erasing that aspect of the story, for erasing the woman as a person.
This is just one book among thousands, of course, and it does not by itself create culture. I wouldn't even care if it weren't part of a consistent message we are bombarded with, over and over from all directions. There is no need to censor the media we consume, but there is a need to question them. The only harm is in pretending that stories told to children are apolitical, because acceptance of the status quo as "harmless" is itself political.
