I’m not suggesting that the Caldecott committees are intentionally discriminating against women. In fact, I don’t know what’s causing the medals gap: A subconscious bias may be at work. Or something in the awards criteria, procedures or judge-selection process may favor men. If so, that would be happening at a higher level than any Caldecott committee. Either way, the credibility of the awards will suffer if they appear to people to be unfair (as they did to some this year, when men swept the Caldecott honors, although women produced outstanding books).

I may not have been clear about publishers. What I was trying to say was: When people don’t like the results of other awards, they blame the judges. But when they don’t like the Caldecotts, some instead blame publishers (who, they argue, may not be publishing as many books illustrated by women): It’s like blaming the team or league when you don’t like calls by umpires. I was trying to show that inconsistency, however indirectly. Thanks for your comment.
Jan

When a woman speaks up against sexual prejudice and is told she’s being “mean-spirited” and should be “kinder…more inclusive…less reactionary and more thoughtful,” it can have a devastatingly chilling effect. In fact, telling a woman to be “kinder” and “more thoughtful” when she’s criticizing institutionalized discrimination is dangerously close to misogyny itself. Characterizing a woman with a grievance as an emotional, irrational figure is a classic sexist tactic in shutting down discussion about sexism.

I hope Ms. Harayda continues to be just this “reactionary” when it comes to calling attention to discrimination in the literary world. And a professional author or illustrator should know better than to let a critical review provoke hasty comment.

2. The numbers of male and female Caldecott winners raise disturbing questions, whatever you think of the tone of my post. Others have raised them, including Peter in the Comments at http://bit.ly/CvAno. These questions deserved more attention than they were getting on library sites, and I provided it. Far from condescending from past Caldecott winners, I have praised repeatedly many in addition to your wife, including Virginia Lee Burton, Maurice Sendak, David Wiesner, David Macaulay, Trina Schart Hyman and Chris Van Allsburg.

3. At no point did I attack personally any Caldecott judge in the way you called me “mean-spirited” and “reactionary.” My post focused on numbers, broad patterns, and long-term trends that transcend any one judge or even group of judges. I agree that we all “should strive to be kinder.” But name-calling isn’t the way to do it. I admire your work and that of your wife and am sorry to see such a response from you.
Jan

My experiences as a critic have been similar to yours. At least 50% of the books I’ve reviewed for children and adults on this blog have come from female authors or illustrators. And my Caldecott post began with the hazy sense that every year, the judges were rejecting outstanding picture books by women. This idea crystallized when I read the statistics compiled by Peter in the Comments at http://bit.ly/CvAno, which documented the medals gap. Thanks so much for recommending authors whose books people may want to seek out, whether or not they have a medal on the cover.

But after I read your comment, I took a quick look at the past decade or so of Australian CBC picture-book award-winners, and although I haven’t done a precise count, their top prize clearly went to more women than received Caldecotts in 2000-2009. If the NZ awards are about evenly balanced, that means: Australia, NZ, and UK picture-book awards are all representing women better than the Caldecotts (if you believe, as I do, that female artists are creating award-worthy books). You’ve made me want to do an exact CBC count, and I’ll post it if I do. Thank you!
Jan

It may be that the US has more male illustrators, for example. But the fact is: All too often, when a Caldecott committee get wonderful books by women that perhaps have been published against the cultural odds, it doesn’t reward them. You mentioned Rosemary Wells (http://www.rosemarywells.com). The ALA has had opportunity after opportunity to reward her, and it hasn’t, while it has honored Kevin Henkes (whose pictures aren’t as witty).

The list of deserving women who never got a Caldecott medal is endless, going back to Wanda Gag, who got an Honor instead. And it seems to me that the medal gap has grown as large as it has partly because no one is holding librarians accountable for it.

But the Caldecott judges have been much more willing to give multiple awards to men. For example, Virginia Lee Burton got the Caldecott for “The Little House.” But she didn’t get one for “Mike Mulligan and His Steam Shovel,” which was no less worthy. In the modern era, Trina Schart Hyman got only one Caldecott medal (for “St. George and the Dragon”) when she was certainly a more distinguished illustrator than some men honored in her lifetime. All of this makes it look as though that the ALA has a double standard: On the basis of the medal count, the Caldecott judges see men’s books as worthier of repeat honors than women’s, especially when the women aren’t part of a team such as Diane and Leo Dillon’s.