What do you think?
Rate this book
Tomboy: The Surprising History and Future of Girls Who Dare to Be Different
Based on the author’s viral New York Times op-ed, this heartfelt book is a celebration and exploration of the tomboy phenomenon and the future of girlhood. We are in the middle of a cultural revolution, where the spectrum of gender and sexual identities is seemingly unlimited. So when author and journalist Lisa Selin Davis's six-year-old daughter first called herself a "tomboy," Davis was hesitant. Her child favored sweatpants and T-shirts over anything pink or princess-themed, just like the sporty, skinned-kneed girls Davis had played with as a kid. But "tomboy" seemed like an outdated word—why use a word with "boy" in it for such girls at all?
So was it outdated? In an era where some are throwing elaborate gender reveal parties and others are embracing they/them pronouns, Davis set out to answer that question, and to find out where tomboys fit into our changing understandings of gender.
In Tomboy, Davis explores the evolution of tomboyism from a Victorian ideal to a twentyfirst century fashion statement, honoring the girls and women—and those who identify otherwise—who stomp all over archaic gender norms. She highlights the forces that have shifted what we think of as masculine and feminine, delving into everything from clothing to psychology, history to neuroscience, and the connection between tomboyism, gender identity, and sexuality. Above all else, Davis's comprehensive deep-dive inspires us to better appreciate those who defy traditional gender boundaries, and the incredible people they become.
Whether you're a grown-up tomboy or raising a gender-rebel of your own, Tomboy is the perfect companion for navigating our cultural shift. It is a celebration of both diversity and those who dare to be different, ultimately revealing how gender nonconformity is a gift.
So was it outdated? In an era where some are throwing elaborate gender reveal parties and others are embracing they/them pronouns, Davis set out to answer that question, and to find out where tomboys fit into our changing understandings of gender.
In Tomboy, Davis explores the evolution of tomboyism from a Victorian ideal to a twentyfirst century fashion statement, honoring the girls and women—and those who identify otherwise—who stomp all over archaic gender norms. She highlights the forces that have shifted what we think of as masculine and feminine, delving into everything from clothing to psychology, history to neuroscience, and the connection between tomboyism, gender identity, and sexuality. Above all else, Davis's comprehensive deep-dive inspires us to better appreciate those who defy traditional gender boundaries, and the incredible people they become.
Whether you're a grown-up tomboy or raising a gender-rebel of your own, Tomboy is the perfect companion for navigating our cultural shift. It is a celebration of both diversity and those who dare to be different, ultimately revealing how gender nonconformity is a gift.
336 pages, Paperback
First published August 11, 2020
67 people are currently reading
1875 people want to read
About the author
Lisa Selin Davis
8 books100 followersI'm thrilled/incredibly nervous about my debut non-fiction book, TOMBOY: The Surprising History and Future of Girls Who Dare to Be Different, out 5/5/20 with Hachette. I've also written a YA novel called LOST STARS and a grown-up novel called BELLY, way back when. I'm written essays and articles for The New York Times, Time, The Wall Street Journal and many other publications. Before that I worked in film and TV, doing props and other art department jobs, including a four-year stint making props for Nickelodeon's Blue's Clues. I live in Brooklyn (but, hey, I moved here before it was cool) with my family. I love doing book clubs, so please reach out if you'd like me to visit virtually or IRL.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 92 reviews
October 9, 2020
It took me a while to figure out what I wanted to say about this - while I enjoyed parts of it, I wasn't enthralled by it, and I felt that she hedged too heavily on criticizing some of the discourse that's popular on the left these days; however, it's still a worthwhile read if you're unfamiliar with the topic of gender and gender nonconfirmity and would like an easy, accessible book about it.
First, in defense of it: This is written for average people, not people who spend all day on Twitter or Tumblr and are on the bleeding edge of the word games hyperliberal circles likes to play. To the majority of people, "a child who was assigned female at birth" is, in fact, what a girl is (and let's be honest - childhood transitioners are a very recent development); no matter your stance on that, it's the truth, and she chose that language to make this book accessible to a wide audience. She also goes out of her way to include the stance of nonbinary and trans people for this book; clearly, she values what they have to say.
My biggest personal issue is that she would not or could not bring herself to actually criticize liberal people in this book! I understand it; not only does criticizing gender identity politics feel like you're undermining the cause of trans rights, which is a miserable feeling when you know the struggles that trans and GNC people face, but the left can be absolutely rabid. Spend any time on liberal social media and you'll experience this.
But let me, as someone who has been forcibly they/them'd multiple times now for having short hair and a masculine face as an otherwise visibly female person, say this: Some of you have bought into the binary you claim to despise so much, because you see a feminine boy or a masculine girl and think, my! This must be a baby binary trans person, or at least, a nonbinary person! I find it painfully regressive that I can't exist in liberal circles as a mildly masculine female person without being targeted for The Pronoun Question the moment I meet someone new, especially because I get side-eyed for fucking hating it. Davis comes so close to being up-front about these same reservations, but leaves it to a mild, hedging complaint in one paragraph towards the end.
My other complaint is that this isn't as detailed as I would have liked; accessible as it is, it's more of an overview of the topic, less a comprehensive discussion, written more to be readable than academic. I can't count this against the book too much - it is targeted towards people who are less knowledgeable about this subject, and I can't say that describes me.
All in all, I don't regret reading it, and I would recommend it to the target audience... But I was not the target audience and neither is almost anyone I know, being a person in one of those hyperliberal online circles I criticized above. Ah, well! Still worth the read.
First, in defense of it: This is written for average people, not people who spend all day on Twitter or Tumblr and are on the bleeding edge of the word games hyperliberal circles likes to play. To the majority of people, "a child who was assigned female at birth" is, in fact, what a girl is (and let's be honest - childhood transitioners are a very recent development); no matter your stance on that, it's the truth, and she chose that language to make this book accessible to a wide audience. She also goes out of her way to include the stance of nonbinary and trans people for this book; clearly, she values what they have to say.
My biggest personal issue is that she would not or could not bring herself to actually criticize liberal people in this book! I understand it; not only does criticizing gender identity politics feel like you're undermining the cause of trans rights, which is a miserable feeling when you know the struggles that trans and GNC people face, but the left can be absolutely rabid. Spend any time on liberal social media and you'll experience this.
But let me, as someone who has been forcibly they/them'd multiple times now for having short hair and a masculine face as an otherwise visibly female person, say this: Some of you have bought into the binary you claim to despise so much, because you see a feminine boy or a masculine girl and think, my! This must be a baby binary trans person, or at least, a nonbinary person! I find it painfully regressive that I can't exist in liberal circles as a mildly masculine female person without being targeted for The Pronoun Question the moment I meet someone new, especially because I get side-eyed for fucking hating it. Davis comes so close to being up-front about these same reservations, but leaves it to a mild, hedging complaint in one paragraph towards the end.
My other complaint is that this isn't as detailed as I would have liked; accessible as it is, it's more of an overview of the topic, less a comprehensive discussion, written more to be readable than academic. I can't count this against the book too much - it is targeted towards people who are less knowledgeable about this subject, and I can't say that describes me.
All in all, I don't regret reading it, and I would recommend it to the target audience... But I was not the target audience and neither is almost anyone I know, being a person in one of those hyperliberal online circles I criticized above. Ah, well! Still worth the read.
March 27, 2020
I really enjoyed this book. The author digs into not only the history of the word "tomboy" but also the social constructions of gender. It has a nice mix of taking a look at studies related to the topic, the author's own story of how her understanding has been deepened and her discussions with other people. She asks some hard questions, but in this context i think they are important to discuss. I love how she has taken the criticism of her article in the New York Times and turned it into a learning experience. You can tell she has spent many hours reading, talking and thinking about this topic. This book is very accessible and not an overly scholarly analysis. I've been thinking about it a lot since I finished it.
January 18, 2020
I LOVE THIS BOOK I WAS A TOM GIRL I CLIMBED TRESS JUMPED OF THE TOP HOUSES I EVEN PLAY WITH MARBLES I WAS DIFFERENT MY MOTHER SAID I PLAY ALONE I LOVE THIS BOOK IT REMINDS ME OF THOSE WILD DAYS I JUMPED OF THE SOFA AND ALL MOST BITTEN OF MY TOUNGE THE SPOTS IS STILL OWN MY TOUNGE GOING TO SCHOOL WE ALL NO THERE ARE SO MANY MEAN KIDS THEY CALLED ME SPOTT TOUNGE I HAD BEEN THROUGH SO MUCH I WAS ONLY 5 I HAD NO SHAME MY GAME.N🤙😎
March 9, 2024
A 3.74. I picked this book up 2 years ago at an independent bookstore in New Hampshire, partly to support said independent bookstore and because the kiddo on the cover was the spitting image of my then 9-year-old. As that daughter has entered adolescence, and after a few rough weeks of body image strife, my strong, athletic, and headstrong kid has discovered that the world at large finds tomboyism cute only up to a point. It prefers Alex Morgans to Megan Rapinoes. This world is gendered, oh so gendered, and it leaves so many out.
Davis's history of the idea of the tomboy and, really, of gender itself is smart, accessible, and thoughtful. It's slightly repetitive. And the word "myriad" is misused at least twice, a common error that annoys me every time I encounter it, but I shall overlook this. As the language around gender becomes ever more fraught, Davis rightly points out the irony that all our efforts at categorizing are reinforcing what is considered masculine or feminine. Is this movement in the right direction, as people find terms fit their identity and experience? Yes, I believe so. But we're not there yet, and new problems arise. The evolution of language is always fun, and necessary. But it's imperfect, and taxonomies have never been my cup of tea.
Gender theory is not new to me, but I still found this book engaging and interesting. Some of my assumptions were challenged, and I liked that, in the end, ambiguity is ultimately what is celebrated. Overall, I was reminded that it is what "society" thinks is desirable in a girl that is the problem, not my kid (I mean, I knew, but the reinforcement was bolstering). This is a timely, important text that should challenge all grown-ups to make space for our kiddos to become whoever it is they are--and celebrate it.
Davis's history of the idea of the tomboy and, really, of gender itself is smart, accessible, and thoughtful. It's slightly repetitive. And the word "myriad" is misused at least twice, a common error that annoys me every time I encounter it, but I shall overlook this. As the language around gender becomes ever more fraught, Davis rightly points out the irony that all our efforts at categorizing are reinforcing what is considered masculine or feminine. Is this movement in the right direction, as people find terms fit their identity and experience? Yes, I believe so. But we're not there yet, and new problems arise. The evolution of language is always fun, and necessary. But it's imperfect, and taxonomies have never been my cup of tea.
Gender theory is not new to me, but I still found this book engaging and interesting. Some of my assumptions were challenged, and I liked that, in the end, ambiguity is ultimately what is celebrated. Overall, I was reminded that it is what "society" thinks is desirable in a girl that is the problem, not my kid (I mean, I knew, but the reinforcement was bolstering). This is a timely, important text that should challenge all grown-ups to make space for our kiddos to become whoever it is they are--and celebrate it.
January 13, 2022
I was pleasantly surprised by how thorough this was for an accessible book on the topic. At the start of the book I was convinced "Well, there's nothing that new here that Peggy Orenstein and others haven't already said other than specifically studying tomboys." I didn't think that I would get much out of it other than an update on how technology is shaping the younger generations' perception of gender conformity and nonconformity.
I was really most surprised because bits of this topic have been percolating in discussions for years now, and it's nice to see that this is where straight people are in understanding now (unless she's exceptionally remarkable for a straight woman, which may be the case). Some of it made me roll my eyes in frustration, but there was a lot of good to it as well.
If you're already familiar with the topics, I'm not sure that most of the book is worth it, but I enjoyed reading stories from women who had identified as tomboys (I never felt like a tomboy myself, but there's enough universality that most will find the stories relatable if they haven't adhered perfectly to gender roles all of their lives).
I was really most surprised because bits of this topic have been percolating in discussions for years now, and it's nice to see that this is where straight people are in understanding now (unless she's exceptionally remarkable for a straight woman, which may be the case). Some of it made me roll my eyes in frustration, but there was a lot of good to it as well.
If you're already familiar with the topics, I'm not sure that most of the book is worth it, but I enjoyed reading stories from women who had identified as tomboys (I never felt like a tomboy myself, but there's enough universality that most will find the stories relatable if they haven't adhered perfectly to gender roles all of their lives).
February 14, 2021
Really interesting read! As a former tomboy, I was curious as to what this was all about. The author has two daughters, one more typically "girl-ish" and the other more "tomboy-ish" and this started her research into all types of gender awareness. I am a biological female and have been 99% happy with that all of my life. I never wanted to be a boy, just knew that they did fun things and I was all in (still am) on some of their fun. My mom never fussed or fretted; she would buy a dress that I would wear once (I did love them, they just weren't practical for tree climbing or to carry frogs), she usually made our clothes anyway and that meant non-descript t-shirts and hand me down jeans. It was perfect. She was the one who suggested a haircut because she was tired of combing branches of trees and leaves out of my hair from my last climb. The hairdo was perfect. I liked the boys. When puberty hit, I still liked the boys and then loved the men; still do. I love pants, comfy clothes, that is my style. I would love more pockets and utilitarian clothing. I wear boys shoes because my feet are small and pink, flashing shoes are not my thing. My children have names that could be considered for a girl/boy. I love being a woman and am a feminist. I think we are the stronger sex, by far. I will always clap for a human who is a badass and is rocking whoever they want to be. I learned a lot in this book about cisgender, bi, binary, non-binary, etc. etc. I think I have been successful in my career because of my tomboy ways and I don't intend to change. I do wear dresses in the summer, usually too big and rather billowy, especially if they have pockets; but the dresses are more for the air flow than anything else. My husband finds me sexy, and I know that I am. That is enough for me.
Read
August 23, 2022A lot of complicated feelings about this book and the information within it. On one hand, I learned a lot from it; it was interesting seeing the history of gender roles and attitudes over the past century or so, and how the pendulum has swung with each generation reacting to the way the previous generation has treated gender.
And yet... given this context, I found myself even more skeptical of current-day takes on gender, rather than less, as the author seems to have become over the course of researching and writing this book. It's hard not to see a lot of the stuff going on today as yet another swing of the pendulum, and a rather harmful and regressive swing, rather than the forward march of progress that the author seems to see.
Overall, I found her application of skepticism to be a bit selective, and her biases were easy to notice. I wish she had applied her skepticism more evenly, or at the very least explored the possibility more than we are just having a cultural moment right now that may pass, just as all other phases have passed. She often skirted close to this idea without ever following it through.
So, yeah, mixed feelings...
And yet... given this context, I found myself even more skeptical of current-day takes on gender, rather than less, as the author seems to have become over the course of researching and writing this book. It's hard not to see a lot of the stuff going on today as yet another swing of the pendulum, and a rather harmful and regressive swing, rather than the forward march of progress that the author seems to see.
Overall, I found her application of skepticism to be a bit selective, and her biases were easy to notice. I wish she had applied her skepticism more evenly, or at the very least explored the possibility more than we are just having a cultural moment right now that may pass, just as all other phases have passed. She often skirted close to this idea without ever following it through.
So, yeah, mixed feelings...
October 14, 2025
Good intentions, but it seems like the author is clinging strongly to her old, sentimental ideas of what "tomboy" means (ie. that one character from "Little Women"). She acknowledges, and yet kind of dismisses, the voices that call for abandoning the term, without going much into why she thinks it's still relevant (apart from her aforementioned sentimental feelings). Too much time is given to Debra Soh, whom I feel due to her transphobic views should not feature in a book tackling gender nonconformity. On the other hand I was really happy to see the voice of Chase Strangio, Deputy Director for Transgender Justice and staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union being featured.
All in all, it's not a great book, but it's not too bad. It's a book from a mother exploring the topic of gender nonconformity and its wider social and moral implications, and for some readers might serve as a nice introduction to those topics. Personally, I found it a bit reductive and simplistic.
All in all, it's not a great book, but it's not too bad. It's a book from a mother exploring the topic of gender nonconformity and its wider social and moral implications, and for some readers might serve as a nice introduction to those topics. Personally, I found it a bit reductive and simplistic.
July 11, 2022
I am so happy my library system has this book; if yours does, I highly recommend it. If it doesn't, I suggest that you recommend the system buys it. Thought-provoking, important, frustrating. I was raised in one of the few generations where being a tomboy was embraced, encouraged, and respected. Then came the backlash of the 90s/00s where childhood was hyper-gendered- the boxes made so narrow and rigid that kids had to come up with new boxes/names to find a place where they were comfort. It is a bummer that we couldn't simply find a way to stop labeling behaviors, personality characteristics, jobs, colors, toys as masculine or feminine. If as a society we respected the things we label "feminine," there wouldn't be a need for boys to avoid "girl" things or for girls who like "boy" things to identify with a different gender. As a society we created a lot of confusion- if we hadn't attached so much cultural crap to gender, we could simply be who we are born to be without limiting labels.
March 11, 2024
Gender isn’t real! :) loved this book although I found it repetitive and almost a little “preachy” at times. I think it’s important to also emphasize that labels are not needed and if someone needs a label to feel validated then I want to give that space as well. This book basically examines a lot of “and statements” ; I don’t think we are done examining gender especially as media grows and changes.
March 15, 2023
A great exploration of gender and all its variations. While focused on “Tomboys” this book was a deep dive into gender and how it shapes the lives of young girls and boys. The book also explores the difference between people who are trans, non-binary, gender-fluid, or just doing their own thing. I loved some of the questions and discussions at the end about gender as a concept. Can a girl really be a tomboy or act “like a boy” if there are no actual boy behaviors? Is she just a different kind of girl? Is she just a girl who likes ____?
A great read!
A great read!
February 25, 2023
2.5 rounded up. Not as groundbreaking as it thinks it is and some clunky/awkward language around gender/transness
October 5, 2022
There is a lot to unpack here. It seems to me Lisa wrote this book in order to correct her controversial op-eds which were basically titled MY KID IS NOT TRANS SHE’S A TOMBOY! Obviously, quite problematic.
The thing is, she learned. She listened to her critics and wrote about what they said. She talked to trans men, lesbians, non-binary people, “tomboys” who grew up to be cishetero. She talked to lots of experts. She talked to kids themselves.
I have a feeling her sensitivity readers had a field day, but I appreciated Lisa’s straightforward prose. I liked getting the perspectives of trans men who were raised as girls. (Leo’s situation, and I have guilt, but one in particular said exactly what he told me - “By having been raised a girl I’m avoiding the trap of toxic masculinity”).
I wish I’d had all the books I’ve been reading lately when the kids were little.
The thing is, she learned. She listened to her critics and wrote about what they said. She talked to trans men, lesbians, non-binary people, “tomboys” who grew up to be cishetero. She talked to lots of experts. She talked to kids themselves.
I have a feeling her sensitivity readers had a field day, but I appreciated Lisa’s straightforward prose. I liked getting the perspectives of trans men who were raised as girls. (Leo’s situation, and I have guilt, but one in particular said exactly what he told me - “By having been raised a girl I’m avoiding the trap of toxic masculinity”).
I wish I’d had all the books I’ve been reading lately when the kids were little.
Read
November 28, 2020I don't know if this is a 1-star, 3-star, or 5-star book, but I don't want to punish it only because it turns out I'm not interested in it, and therefore didn't finish it. I was hoping for a little nostalgia about my very tomboyish childhood, but this is a much more academic exploration of gender identities and current cultural labeling. I just liked to ride bikes and horses as a girl, and had no use for dolls or dresses, and I was hoping to wallow in fond memories.
This isn't that book.
This isn't that book.
November 18, 2020
A good book that I realize I didn’t just read to be a more informed parent as the mother of a Tom girl but as a woman who didn’t subscribe to the girly expectations of my family when I was growing up. I grew up in the 1970s and through the 1980s when unisex clothes were standard. I was an adult by the time the Spice Girls and Disney princesses rolled around. It still has an impact on how we view girls today.
August 14, 2021
Lisa Selin Davis wrote an op-ed for the New York Times entitled, “My Daughter Is Not Transgender. She’s a Tomboy.” In it, she raises the specter that “we might be confusing cisgender girls with stereotypically masculine interests with those who needed to transition, socially or medically—and in the process telling them that they’re not actually girls, and thus narrowing that category.” Her book is in some sense a lengthy reply to the criticism that followed, and she sums it up well: “If the word and idea of ‘tomboy’ are problematic, they are symptoms of a much larger problem: the problem of hyper-gendering of childhood.”
With that, Selin Davis leads a guided hike through the gender terrain trod before her by Peggy Orenstein and Jo Paoletti, among others. But there’s new stuff too. Did you know the word “tomboy” has a connection to eugenics, “once referred to a boisterous boy or an adult woman’s sexuality,” and had a heyday in the 1800s before the 1970s one? Then “a Big Bang of convergent cultural shifts,” Selin Davis explains, all but vanquished the classic ‘80s tomboy: “unchecked capitalism, advances in reproductive technology, homophobia, anti-feminist backlash, a declining birthrate, deregulation of kids’ TV, and the rise of ‘girl power.’” She shares not just fresh information, but also ideas I had yet to encounter. For example, feminist parents may be relieved when their daughters drop the princess phase, Selin Davis says, but really what it means is they’ve internalized sexism: “Kids learn early that what matters about boys is what they do and what matters about girls is appearance…, [and] asserting a tomboyish side [is] a way to push themselves higher on the status ladder.”
Selin Davis agrees, albeit in a begruding and belabored way, with trans advocates who suggest the terms “gender nonconforming” and “nonbinary” can encapsulate cisgender girls with stereotypically masculine appearances, approaches, and interests: “It’s as if all those words and ideas have been superglued, so the one way to break them apart, to be free of gender stereotypes, is to get rid of the boxes and blow up the gender binary altogether.” But still, “the feminist in me couldn’t help questioning why we couldn’t widen that girl category to accommodate people like Jessie or Phoenix or Mere. Did it have to be abandoned in order for people to feel free to be themselves?” She left me feeling torn, and yet, hopeful. If the historical trajectory of the word “tomboy” ultimately teaches us anything, it’s that “it is possible to steer the big ship of our culture toward more gender-equitable parenting.”
That said, Selin Davis needs a wee bit of help at the helm. I’ve read extensively about neuroscience and gender, and I think she gets almost everything right until she unquestioningly cites disputed research for the proposition that there are even small innate differences between boys and girls before puberty. But the dismount, she nails, concluding: “The way we’ve gendered childhood is a construction, not rooted in biological differences between sexes. Still, what is constructed becomes reality, so much so that we abide by the divisions of our invention as if they are unassailable truths. And the problem is: Many children’s experiences don’t match up with the ‘truths’ about gender that adults believe.”
And there’s no question that Selin Davis achieves her stated goal—“to get parents, especially, to question where their ideas of normalcy for boys and girls come from.”
With that, Selin Davis leads a guided hike through the gender terrain trod before her by Peggy Orenstein and Jo Paoletti, among others. But there’s new stuff too. Did you know the word “tomboy” has a connection to eugenics, “once referred to a boisterous boy or an adult woman’s sexuality,” and had a heyday in the 1800s before the 1970s one? Then “a Big Bang of convergent cultural shifts,” Selin Davis explains, all but vanquished the classic ‘80s tomboy: “unchecked capitalism, advances in reproductive technology, homophobia, anti-feminist backlash, a declining birthrate, deregulation of kids’ TV, and the rise of ‘girl power.’” She shares not just fresh information, but also ideas I had yet to encounter. For example, feminist parents may be relieved when their daughters drop the princess phase, Selin Davis says, but really what it means is they’ve internalized sexism: “Kids learn early that what matters about boys is what they do and what matters about girls is appearance…, [and] asserting a tomboyish side [is] a way to push themselves higher on the status ladder.”
Selin Davis agrees, albeit in a begruding and belabored way, with trans advocates who suggest the terms “gender nonconforming” and “nonbinary” can encapsulate cisgender girls with stereotypically masculine appearances, approaches, and interests: “It’s as if all those words and ideas have been superglued, so the one way to break them apart, to be free of gender stereotypes, is to get rid of the boxes and blow up the gender binary altogether.” But still, “the feminist in me couldn’t help questioning why we couldn’t widen that girl category to accommodate people like Jessie or Phoenix or Mere. Did it have to be abandoned in order for people to feel free to be themselves?” She left me feeling torn, and yet, hopeful. If the historical trajectory of the word “tomboy” ultimately teaches us anything, it’s that “it is possible to steer the big ship of our culture toward more gender-equitable parenting.”
That said, Selin Davis needs a wee bit of help at the helm. I’ve read extensively about neuroscience and gender, and I think she gets almost everything right until she unquestioningly cites disputed research for the proposition that there are even small innate differences between boys and girls before puberty. But the dismount, she nails, concluding: “The way we’ve gendered childhood is a construction, not rooted in biological differences between sexes. Still, what is constructed becomes reality, so much so that we abide by the divisions of our invention as if they are unassailable truths. And the problem is: Many children’s experiences don’t match up with the ‘truths’ about gender that adults believe.”
And there’s no question that Selin Davis achieves her stated goal—“to get parents, especially, to question where their ideas of normalcy for boys and girls come from.”
June 29, 2020
A thorough and engrossing sociological, historical, and psychological examination and the antiquated term 'tomboy,' an imagined future for children who defy categories, and so much more.
TOMBOY: The Surprising History and Future of Girls Who Dare to Be Different (Hachette Books, August 11 2020) first came to my attention this past spring and I knew I had read it. As a 'soccer mom,' I often hear this on the pitch, "Oh, she's just a Tomboy" or something of similar ilk. I started thinking about why we use this term and if there really was such a thing. And then I read Lisa Selin Davis's insightful and daring new book and felt we were cut from the same cloth.
Here's thing: I don't really think 'Tomboys' exist. People do. And we need to stop with the labels and marketing that supports (or doesn't support) this divide.
Selin-Davis takes us deep into the history of the term 'tomboy' and gives us stunning examples of how advertising and marketing have played to the stereotypes of gender, gender roles, expectations, sex, and more. Here, we investigate what a 'tomboy' was like in the early days, how they are different now. In the last decade+ we have seen a surge in changes on the gender continuum, LBGTQ+ and more, and so how are parents supposed to negotiate, guide and advise children?
In TOMBOY, Selin-Davis discusses societal expectations based on gender, bringing forth current media and social events, the idea that perhaps we ought to just have courage to live as we are.
This is a highly and well-researched narrative nonfiction and the author's passion for her subject is palpable. I found I had questions identified with much of what was presented, but I also felt a little lost with newer acronyms and labels, but a more ambitious parent might not. For example, it was hard to sometimes sift through what non-binary, cis, and trans-girl or trans-boy meant, but maybe that's just me. In some instances, I felt there might have been a slight deviation from what I thought the book was going to be about (parenting the so-called 'tomboy') and it morphed into a discussion of raising a child who might be trans. Still, I feel TOMBOY is an important read that will be eye-opening and life-changing for many.
I found some similarities between TOMBOY and LAST CHILD IN THE WOODS (Richard Louv) meets the writing style and rigor of Alexandra Robbins meets Ada Calhoun's WHY WE CAN'T SLEEP.
For all my reviews, including author interviews, please see: www.leslielindsay.com|Always with a Book.
Special thanks to Dewey Decimal Media for this review copy. All thoughts are my own.
TOMBOY: The Surprising History and Future of Girls Who Dare to Be Different (Hachette Books, August 11 2020) first came to my attention this past spring and I knew I had read it. As a 'soccer mom,' I often hear this on the pitch, "Oh, she's just a Tomboy" or something of similar ilk. I started thinking about why we use this term and if there really was such a thing. And then I read Lisa Selin Davis's insightful and daring new book and felt we were cut from the same cloth.
Here's thing: I don't really think 'Tomboys' exist. People do. And we need to stop with the labels and marketing that supports (or doesn't support) this divide.
Selin-Davis takes us deep into the history of the term 'tomboy' and gives us stunning examples of how advertising and marketing have played to the stereotypes of gender, gender roles, expectations, sex, and more. Here, we investigate what a 'tomboy' was like in the early days, how they are different now. In the last decade+ we have seen a surge in changes on the gender continuum, LBGTQ+ and more, and so how are parents supposed to negotiate, guide and advise children?
In TOMBOY, Selin-Davis discusses societal expectations based on gender, bringing forth current media and social events, the idea that perhaps we ought to just have courage to live as we are.
This is a highly and well-researched narrative nonfiction and the author's passion for her subject is palpable. I found I had questions identified with much of what was presented, but I also felt a little lost with newer acronyms and labels, but a more ambitious parent might not. For example, it was hard to sometimes sift through what non-binary, cis, and trans-girl or trans-boy meant, but maybe that's just me. In some instances, I felt there might have been a slight deviation from what I thought the book was going to be about (parenting the so-called 'tomboy') and it morphed into a discussion of raising a child who might be trans. Still, I feel TOMBOY is an important read that will be eye-opening and life-changing for many.
I found some similarities between TOMBOY and LAST CHILD IN THE WOODS (Richard Louv) meets the writing style and rigor of Alexandra Robbins meets Ada Calhoun's WHY WE CAN'T SLEEP.
For all my reviews, including author interviews, please see: www.leslielindsay.com|Always with a Book.
Special thanks to Dewey Decimal Media for this review copy. All thoughts are my own.
December 31, 2020
I’d be lying if I said I didn’t come to this book with some trepidation, as the discussion of gender identity, gender expression, and how they intersect is such a complicated one. But overall, I think the author did an excellent job in walking that line. The discussions about the history of the concept of the tomboy, how the meaning of it changed over time, and when it went out of vogue is all nuanced, reflecting the sociological context of the time, including how gender roles have changed, how the standards of gender expression has changed over time, and how society has evolved new categories of gender expression and identity.
The impetus of writing the book was the experience of her daughter: a girl who, in the 80s or 90s, would have been called a tomboy. She identifies as a girl, but is not interested in feminine gender expression or interests that society typically encourages in girls. Her daughter does not identify as non-binary, nor trans, just a girl who doesn’t like girl stuff (I sympathize). This grows into the book's biggest questions: How do we support kids in finding and exploring gender identity and expression? How do we support kids in their gender identity and expression? Does the term “tomboy” still have any place in 2020?
Spoiler alert (is that a thing in non-fiction?): the strongest conclusion of the book is that kids should be supported in experimenting with gender identity and expression and validated when they find their own identity and expression. BUT as a society, we also need to really pull back on the gendering of EVERYTHING. Kids (and grownups!) should be able explore their interests and fashion preferences and hair styles without everything being labelled “pink” and “blue” (literally or otherwise), and if that were the case, terms like tomboy (which she says may be past its time), wouldn’t be needed.
I really appreciated this book. I was a tomboy in the 90s, but as an adult I feel there’s no one word that fits all that well. This book doesn’t give an answer, but certainly gave a path forward to a place where we can all feel like we fit in.
The impetus of writing the book was the experience of her daughter: a girl who, in the 80s or 90s, would have been called a tomboy. She identifies as a girl, but is not interested in feminine gender expression or interests that society typically encourages in girls. Her daughter does not identify as non-binary, nor trans, just a girl who doesn’t like girl stuff (I sympathize). This grows into the book's biggest questions: How do we support kids in finding and exploring gender identity and expression? How do we support kids in their gender identity and expression? Does the term “tomboy” still have any place in 2020?
Spoiler alert (is that a thing in non-fiction?): the strongest conclusion of the book is that kids should be supported in experimenting with gender identity and expression and validated when they find their own identity and expression. BUT as a society, we also need to really pull back on the gendering of EVERYTHING. Kids (and grownups!) should be able explore their interests and fashion preferences and hair styles without everything being labelled “pink” and “blue” (literally or otherwise), and if that were the case, terms like tomboy (which she says may be past its time), wouldn’t be needed.
I really appreciated this book. I was a tomboy in the 90s, but as an adult I feel there’s no one word that fits all that well. This book doesn’t give an answer, but certainly gave a path forward to a place where we can all feel like we fit in.
September 5, 2021
What a brilliant book. I loved Davis' clear-eyed exploration of gender circa 2020. What happened to the term "Tomboy" which our feminist moms and dads embraced in the 1970s? Why do so many people who identify as non-binary or trans still think that "being a boy" means rough-housing on the playground and being aggressive in the classroom (or in conversation) and "being a girl" means wearing pink, dressing up as princesses and wearing make-up? It seems, as Davis shows, that the Gen Z generation has had more hyper-gendered upbringings than we did in the '70s or even '80s when androgynous clothes were more common. Clothing and toys manufacturing companies are partly to blame--but so are the adults who perpetuate these antiquated notions about gender. (Gender reveal parties, anyone???) While Davis embraces Gen Z's openness about gender, and embraces what it means to be gender non-conforming in all its guises, she wonders why we can't have more expansive views about gender to begin with. Where did the tomboy go—and when did that term become so polarizing? If you want to know, read this book.
December 16, 2023
This is a deep dive into the long history of girls and what happens when they don't display and experience their gender in the way society expects. While the names and attitudes about this has changed, there have always been people who are put off when girls exhibit behaviors that are deemed more masculine. There seems to be an age limit to what can be socially acceptable for girls to try to do differently than expected. This covers social norms across history, social vs. biological assumptions about gender, and more. This is a celebration of gender in all of its forms. Great on audio.
did-not-finish
November 7, 2020DNF after multiple bouts of frustration with her '... but what about the (cishet) girls?' when talking with a trans expert who said tomboys still exist in today's media except that gender is no longer considered binary and some of these tomboy characters end up being trans or gender non conforming. She did feature interviews with trans people who were former tomboys so I thought I'd stick with it but the 'we need more tomboys that conform to my nostalgia' wore me down.
January 27, 2021
It's not the book that the subtitle implies - and that's unfortunate.
If you want history, maybe you should read Lillian Faderman (Odd Girls and Twilight Lovers, among others).
If you want a discussion on the future of the word tomboy, you should read anything else. Or maybe get a copy of the book and re-edit it into the story of a parent whose discomfort with her child's gender fluidity led her to write op-eds that were more about herself and her attitudes - and the backlash that followed.
If you want history, maybe you should read Lillian Faderman (Odd Girls and Twilight Lovers, among others).
If you want a discussion on the future of the word tomboy, you should read anything else. Or maybe get a copy of the book and re-edit it into the story of a parent whose discomfort with her child's gender fluidity led her to write op-eds that were more about herself and her attitudes - and the backlash that followed.
June 3, 2022
I was pretty excited to read this book after randomly spotting it in a bookstore a few weeks ago - I, too, am one of the (apparently many) people who identified as a tomboy back in the day. And I never really grew out of it, to be honest. My hobbies are still pretty well coded male (reading scifi/fantasy, playing video games, mucking about with computers) and my mode of dress involves zero dresses. Or heels, or makeup, or painted nails, or pink. But. I identify as a cisgendered woman, and am very happy to continue to do so. So I appreciated the fairly expansive stance this book took on both gender identity and gender expression.
The book largely seemed to be speaking to socially liberal cisgendered parents - and likely folks my age (late 30s) or a bit older - who are raising kids and trying to find their way through conceptions of sex and gender now that the binary has been (or at least is trying to be) exploded. In that sense, this book was not really for me - I don't have kids and don't intend to. I'm also fairly well versed in gender / sex / sexuality literature and modes of thought; not much in this book was particularly new for me, though I did find the history of the concept "tomboy" (which seemed fairly US specific) to be interesting.
In other ways, this book seemed very much geared towards me, and towards anyone else in my age bracket who may be in the process of reconsidering their gender identity now that there seem to be so many more recognized options. The key argument I think this book was making is that tomboy-ism - or whatever you want to call AFAB (assigned female at birth) girls who want to do boy things and act like boys - is not necessarily indicative of gender dysphoria, but rather indicative of people's desire to not conform to the normative roles proscribed by society on the gender they are assigned.
I used to be part of a graphic novel book club (suspended due to COVID, boo), which was, as you may expect, populated primarily by white men. Many of them were well-meaning, at least, and interested in discussing rather than condemning. One month, we read the graphic novel Tomboy by Liz Prince. Much of my contribution to the discussion that day was about how much I related to the author's experiences of doing boy-ish things and thus being labeled as a tomboy as a kid and teenager. One attendee of the book club that month was an older man who was also a retired professor of biology, specializing in sex. His prognosis partway through the discussion - and after I'd said my piece about the author's experiences matching my own - was that the author's recount of her experiences looked like a clear case of gender dysphoria. Thereby implying that I was also experiencing gender dysphoria.
I can't speak for Liz Prince (though, as far as I know, she still does identify as a woman), but I can certainly speak for myself. Gender dysphoria is largely defined by feelings of being in the wrong body, particularly relating to one's sexual characteristics. Tomboy-ism might be a symptom of this, but then it might not be. I didn't have those feelings as a kid, and I don't have them now. I'm quite happy with my body, to be honest, which is probably more than many cisgendered women who don't experience gender dysphoria can say, given how restrictive our culture is on what makes a woman's body "acceptable." An underlying point in Davis's book is that gender expression doesn't have to align with gender identity. And I sure wish I'd had that point on the tip of my tongue when that dude heavily implied I was doing gender wrong in that book club meeting years ago.
Gender expression, at least in countries like the U.S., is normatively linked to sex characteristics, but it doesn't have to be that way. Many people link the labels "girl" and "woman" to having ovaries and a uterus and "boy" and "man" to having a penis. The label I use to describe own gender identity - "woman" - is somewhat tied up in this linkage, and I don't think we humans can ever quite sever that link so long as there are some people who have certain sexual organs and others who don't. Maybe our existing labels will evolve or multiply such that sexual characteristics, gender identity, and gender expression are no longer so hopelessly intertwined. We're on that path to some extent, but I don't expect that sort of change to happen quickly.
What I take issue with - and what comes out in both my gender identity and my gender expression - is the idea that the sexual characteristics we have necessarily define what we do or how we choose to act. I want to identify as a woman because I want to identify as someone who has the specific sexual characteristics that I do. I also want to identify as a woman because I want to show others through my looks and actions that I think the proscribed gender norms we have in this society are bullshit, and that I stand in evidence of that.
So all that said, this book was a valuable read for me personally because it helped me put into words how I feel about my own gender identity by helping me to separate gender identity and gender expression in my head. For others: while by no means comprehensive, this was a generally well-researched (if somewhat disorganized) book that asked some good questions. I would recommend it to anyone who doesn't understand much about this gender identity stuff but wants to learn more.
The book largely seemed to be speaking to socially liberal cisgendered parents - and likely folks my age (late 30s) or a bit older - who are raising kids and trying to find their way through conceptions of sex and gender now that the binary has been (or at least is trying to be) exploded. In that sense, this book was not really for me - I don't have kids and don't intend to. I'm also fairly well versed in gender / sex / sexuality literature and modes of thought; not much in this book was particularly new for me, though I did find the history of the concept "tomboy" (which seemed fairly US specific) to be interesting.
In other ways, this book seemed very much geared towards me, and towards anyone else in my age bracket who may be in the process of reconsidering their gender identity now that there seem to be so many more recognized options. The key argument I think this book was making is that tomboy-ism - or whatever you want to call AFAB (assigned female at birth) girls who want to do boy things and act like boys - is not necessarily indicative of gender dysphoria, but rather indicative of people's desire to not conform to the normative roles proscribed by society on the gender they are assigned.
I used to be part of a graphic novel book club (suspended due to COVID, boo), which was, as you may expect, populated primarily by white men. Many of them were well-meaning, at least, and interested in discussing rather than condemning. One month, we read the graphic novel Tomboy by Liz Prince. Much of my contribution to the discussion that day was about how much I related to the author's experiences of doing boy-ish things and thus being labeled as a tomboy as a kid and teenager. One attendee of the book club that month was an older man who was also a retired professor of biology, specializing in sex. His prognosis partway through the discussion - and after I'd said my piece about the author's experiences matching my own - was that the author's recount of her experiences looked like a clear case of gender dysphoria. Thereby implying that I was also experiencing gender dysphoria.
I can't speak for Liz Prince (though, as far as I know, she still does identify as a woman), but I can certainly speak for myself. Gender dysphoria is largely defined by feelings of being in the wrong body, particularly relating to one's sexual characteristics. Tomboy-ism might be a symptom of this, but then it might not be. I didn't have those feelings as a kid, and I don't have them now. I'm quite happy with my body, to be honest, which is probably more than many cisgendered women who don't experience gender dysphoria can say, given how restrictive our culture is on what makes a woman's body "acceptable." An underlying point in Davis's book is that gender expression doesn't have to align with gender identity. And I sure wish I'd had that point on the tip of my tongue when that dude heavily implied I was doing gender wrong in that book club meeting years ago.
Gender expression, at least in countries like the U.S., is normatively linked to sex characteristics, but it doesn't have to be that way. Many people link the labels "girl" and "woman" to having ovaries and a uterus and "boy" and "man" to having a penis. The label I use to describe own gender identity - "woman" - is somewhat tied up in this linkage, and I don't think we humans can ever quite sever that link so long as there are some people who have certain sexual organs and others who don't. Maybe our existing labels will evolve or multiply such that sexual characteristics, gender identity, and gender expression are no longer so hopelessly intertwined. We're on that path to some extent, but I don't expect that sort of change to happen quickly.
What I take issue with - and what comes out in both my gender identity and my gender expression - is the idea that the sexual characteristics we have necessarily define what we do or how we choose to act. I want to identify as a woman because I want to identify as someone who has the specific sexual characteristics that I do. I also want to identify as a woman because I want to show others through my looks and actions that I think the proscribed gender norms we have in this society are bullshit, and that I stand in evidence of that.
So all that said, this book was a valuable read for me personally because it helped me put into words how I feel about my own gender identity by helping me to separate gender identity and gender expression in my head. For others: while by no means comprehensive, this was a generally well-researched (if somewhat disorganized) book that asked some good questions. I would recommend it to anyone who doesn't understand much about this gender identity stuff but wants to learn more.
May 13, 2022
Tomboy offers the opinion that "we are in the middle of a cultural revolution, where the spectrum of gender and sexual identities is seemingly unlimited." Author Lisa Selin Davis explores the evolution of tomboyism from a Victorian ideal to our current century, honoring the girls and women--and those who identify otherwise--who take issue with having to stuff our children into archaic gender norms.
My eyes grew wider and wider as I plowed through the chapters, because the book is loaded with more statistics, terminology, studies, parent and child testimonies, opinions and philosophies than Carter has Little Liver Pills! (that's an "old-person" expression I tend to use a lot!). But that doesn't necessarily make it a BAD book . . . just one that's filled with a whole lot of stuff I didn't have a clue about.
My takeaway: There are just way too many labels, lanes, and boxes society is hell bent on imposing upon our children and the parents who raise them. We all need to lighten up and let our little ones gravitate to the colors, toys, clothes, playmates, and play styles that come natural to them. It's OKAY to allow our daughters to cross over the "pink/blue divide" and play with trucks and climb trees, and likewise, allow our sons to interact with dolls and cooking sets. Planet Earth will not cease to spin if our little girl prefers a short haircut, sweatpants and a T-shirt over PFD's ("pink frilly dresses" -- a real term in the book!), because heck, those choices are just plain more COMFORTABLE and congruent with the style of play she most enjoys. Kids know what they know (it's already packaged inside of them!). Us big people need to give them a chance to show us what they know. Tomboy explains how we can edit the definitions of what it means to be a "socially and behaviorally acceptable" girl or boy. Kids are most happy when they are not forced into boxes, categories and identities that don't feel natural. When did we allow SOCIETY the right to define and dictate what a girl or boy should BE, how they should look, dress, or how they should play and interact in the world in which they live? Davis' Tomboy suggests and teaches us how we can gain the flexibility, confidence and trust that our precious little ones need in order to evolve into the amazing human beings they were BORN to be.
Thank you, Lisa Selin Davis, for your input.
Five Stars!
My eyes grew wider and wider as I plowed through the chapters, because the book is loaded with more statistics, terminology, studies, parent and child testimonies, opinions and philosophies than Carter has Little Liver Pills! (that's an "old-person" expression I tend to use a lot!). But that doesn't necessarily make it a BAD book . . . just one that's filled with a whole lot of stuff I didn't have a clue about.
My takeaway: There are just way too many labels, lanes, and boxes society is hell bent on imposing upon our children and the parents who raise them. We all need to lighten up and let our little ones gravitate to the colors, toys, clothes, playmates, and play styles that come natural to them. It's OKAY to allow our daughters to cross over the "pink/blue divide" and play with trucks and climb trees, and likewise, allow our sons to interact with dolls and cooking sets. Planet Earth will not cease to spin if our little girl prefers a short haircut, sweatpants and a T-shirt over PFD's ("pink frilly dresses" -- a real term in the book!), because heck, those choices are just plain more COMFORTABLE and congruent with the style of play she most enjoys. Kids know what they know (it's already packaged inside of them!). Us big people need to give them a chance to show us what they know. Tomboy explains how we can edit the definitions of what it means to be a "socially and behaviorally acceptable" girl or boy. Kids are most happy when they are not forced into boxes, categories and identities that don't feel natural. When did we allow SOCIETY the right to define and dictate what a girl or boy should BE, how they should look, dress, or how they should play and interact in the world in which they live? Davis' Tomboy suggests and teaches us how we can gain the flexibility, confidence and trust that our precious little ones need in order to evolve into the amazing human beings they were BORN to be.
Thank you, Lisa Selin Davis, for your input.
Five Stars!
March 16, 2021
Girls (and Boys) Just Want to Be Themselves
Here are some things people of any age can probably agree on: Figuring out who we were, how we fit in, as we grew up was hard. Now grown up it’s still hard figuring out where we fit in. Sure, some of us are among the fortunate who have a good and healthy concept of themselves, even when we were young. This, however, doesn’t describe most of the U.S. population, otherwise we would have a shortage of clinical psychologists. Well, maybe that’s a joke, but if Lisa Selin Davis has any message in her book Tomboy, it’s that, girl or boy, growing up is tough. And what’s makes it much more a bear are parents and society and their collective preconceptions and expectations of what gender means.
In Tomboy, Davis roams around quite a bit as she uses the idea of tomboys to illustrate how concepts of gender roles have changed over the past couple of centuries. She reminds us that there was a time when girls and boys, at least in dress, were treated much the same, with both wearing dresses and frills up to the time of puberty. Then typing and commercialization, especially in clothing and toys, became the thing as we entered and traveled through the 20th century, producing a rigidity that cast children into roles expected of them in adulthood. This doesn’t seem to have worked out well for girls or boys, slotting women into roles best suited to their perceived strength of compassion and men into their own stereotyped aggressiveness and control. Davis marshals quite a large group of psychologists, gender thinkers, and women reflecting on their upbringings to tell her story. What you have is an exploration of how gender has come to mean more than biological assignment and how busting out of defined roles may have benefited some.
Those picking up the book with the hope of reminiscing about their own tomboy childhoods will be disappointed, for this isn’t a nostalgic romp. Those looking for a better understanding of how allowing girls to express themselves will benefit in later life may also find the book less than they expected, as these examples are sparse. Okay for what it is, but it could have been better.
Here are some things people of any age can probably agree on: Figuring out who we were, how we fit in, as we grew up was hard. Now grown up it’s still hard figuring out where we fit in. Sure, some of us are among the fortunate who have a good and healthy concept of themselves, even when we were young. This, however, doesn’t describe most of the U.S. population, otherwise we would have a shortage of clinical psychologists. Well, maybe that’s a joke, but if Lisa Selin Davis has any message in her book Tomboy, it’s that, girl or boy, growing up is tough. And what’s makes it much more a bear are parents and society and their collective preconceptions and expectations of what gender means.
In Tomboy, Davis roams around quite a bit as she uses the idea of tomboys to illustrate how concepts of gender roles have changed over the past couple of centuries. She reminds us that there was a time when girls and boys, at least in dress, were treated much the same, with both wearing dresses and frills up to the time of puberty. Then typing and commercialization, especially in clothing and toys, became the thing as we entered and traveled through the 20th century, producing a rigidity that cast children into roles expected of them in adulthood. This doesn’t seem to have worked out well for girls or boys, slotting women into roles best suited to their perceived strength of compassion and men into their own stereotyped aggressiveness and control. Davis marshals quite a large group of psychologists, gender thinkers, and women reflecting on their upbringings to tell her story. What you have is an exploration of how gender has come to mean more than biological assignment and how busting out of defined roles may have benefited some.
Those picking up the book with the hope of reminiscing about their own tomboy childhoods will be disappointed, for this isn’t a nostalgic romp. Those looking for a better understanding of how allowing girls to express themselves will benefit in later life may also find the book less than they expected, as these examples are sparse. Okay for what it is, but it could have been better.
December 11, 2020
Overall, there were a lot of things to like here. Even as someone who's spent some time reading (and thinking) about gender, gender roles, etc, I feel like I learned some new things. While the book does a good job overall of summarizing the culture and history of "tomboy" and its meanings over the years, sometimes it ranges enough into other areas that you almost wish the title had been more general as well.
Even as someone who grew up in the late 70s / early 80s, it was surprising to see exactly how much we've regressed in certain respects, even while we've progressed in others.
I did feel like overall, the author was trying to do a good job to be inclusive and share lots of viewpoints (maybe by way of apology for some of her articles which, apparently, didn't go over well with some audiences), but at some points, I think it also made the book a bit more wishy-washy. There are also times where she discusses a lot of research, but then will just say "well, we know that xyz". Typically, these were usually statements that I'd agree with, personally, but it was sometimes kind of jarring in a book that otherwise takes kind of a pop-science perspective. She also interjects with stories about her own children and Brooklyn life in a way that sometimes feels a little self-involved.
At times it also felt like she was a bit too quick to assume that things (and specifically, corporations) were moving in the right direction, and didn't always seem to attribute as much of the increase in gendered marketing to economic or financial causes. And, it didn't feel like she dug maybe deeply enough into some of the social factors behind these shifts either.
There is some interesting discussion in terms of the need to afford more flexibility in gender roles to boys; given the title of the book, it's not surprising that the author doesn't dwell on this too much, but it does seem like a good area for future exploration.
Even as someone who grew up in the late 70s / early 80s, it was surprising to see exactly how much we've regressed in certain respects, even while we've progressed in others.
I did feel like overall, the author was trying to do a good job to be inclusive and share lots of viewpoints (maybe by way of apology for some of her articles which, apparently, didn't go over well with some audiences), but at some points, I think it also made the book a bit more wishy-washy. There are also times where she discusses a lot of research, but then will just say "well, we know that xyz". Typically, these were usually statements that I'd agree with, personally, but it was sometimes kind of jarring in a book that otherwise takes kind of a pop-science perspective. She also interjects with stories about her own children and Brooklyn life in a way that sometimes feels a little self-involved.
At times it also felt like she was a bit too quick to assume that things (and specifically, corporations) were moving in the right direction, and didn't always seem to attribute as much of the increase in gendered marketing to economic or financial causes. And, it didn't feel like she dug maybe deeply enough into some of the social factors behind these shifts either.
There is some interesting discussion in terms of the need to afford more flexibility in gender roles to boys; given the title of the book, it's not surprising that the author doesn't dwell on this too much, but it does seem like a good area for future exploration.
April 6, 2020
Tomboy: the Surprising History and Future of Girls Who Dare to Be Different by Lisa Selin Davis is an exploration of gender experience, biological sex, traditional understanding of gender roles, and the surprising histories and multiple understandings of gender-related terms. In this book, Selin Davis, the mother of a biologically female child who identifies as a girl but tends to enjoy clothing that would be traditionally understood as "boy clothing" and activities that would be traditionally understood as "boyish," explores the meaning of the word "tomboy," the history behind it, and the reason why we are so quick to dump everything into binary, gendered boxes. Is your head spinning just from reading that? Mine was too, from beginning to end of this book.
Gender is complicated in the 21st century, so in some ways, this is to be expected. And I could definitely understand the author's frustration with well-meaning people who suggested that her daughter identified as male when her daughter had clearly articulated that she was merely a girl who liked "boy things." I believe that the overall premise of this book is that we should stop trying to put everyone in hyper-gendered boxes to begin with, and to that, I say bravo, hence the 3 stars. I can also appreciate that the author definitely did her homework.
But did I find this book enjoyable? No, I primarily found it confusing. Hence only 3 stars.
I received a free digital galley copy through NetGalley in exchange for an honest review. Thank you to Hachette Book Group for the opportunity to read and review.
Tomboy will be released on May 5th, 2020.
Gender is complicated in the 21st century, so in some ways, this is to be expected. And I could definitely understand the author's frustration with well-meaning people who suggested that her daughter identified as male when her daughter had clearly articulated that she was merely a girl who liked "boy things." I believe that the overall premise of this book is that we should stop trying to put everyone in hyper-gendered boxes to begin with, and to that, I say bravo, hence the 3 stars. I can also appreciate that the author definitely did her homework.
But did I find this book enjoyable? No, I primarily found it confusing. Hence only 3 stars.
I received a free digital galley copy through NetGalley in exchange for an honest review. Thank you to Hachette Book Group for the opportunity to read and review.
Tomboy will be released on May 5th, 2020.
June 3, 2021
Interesting and worthwhile exploration of the claims that "childhood is overly gendered—there would be no need for the word [tomboy] if less of childhood were divided into pink and blue" and that rather than transcending gender in the wake of the women's movement and the Stonewall Riots, "we found cleverer and more pernicious forms of sexism to keep people, especially kids, in their gender-segregated lanes." Davis notes that "hearts and rainbows and sparkles and unicorns ... [are] the stuff of joy. It’s that they’re associated with girly-girls that makes them bad, and that’s a sad equation. Rather than raising a daughter to reject what’s associated with girls, how about raising sons to embrace it?"
I appreciated this paragraph, could have written it myself, and have in fact written things very like it myself:
I appreciated this paragraph, could have written it myself, and have in fact written things very like it myself:
The only way to do gender wrong, I’ve come to believe, is to tell someone else that they’re doing it wrong–something trans people, and even some masculine cisgender girls, are constantly told. Though I’ve spent most of my life thinking about the invisible, and visible, forces encouraging me to be a certain kind of girl, and leaving me with the self-esteem of roadkill because I couldn’t measure up to those standards, I’d never thought about the forces encouraging me to identify as a girl. I never questioned my gender identity, not even when I wondered about my child’s, even though I am often loud and aggressive and pushy and brash and embody a host of qualities culturally branded as masculine. But I certainly had internalized the feeling that I was doing gender wrong, as far back as I can remember.
January 6, 2022
This book traces the origin and evolution of the concept of the tomboy up through modern times into the minefield that gender has become. Personally I have never liked the term tomboy because it assumes that it is not natural for girls to be sporty, have short hair, be strong, wear certain fashions, etc and I have always felt and still strongly feel that there are a lot of ways to be a girl and a lot of ways to be a boy.
While reading this book I gained an appreciation for how the concept of the tomboy created space and a cultural acceptance for girls to challenge the cultural norms and felt the lack of a similar concept for boys to do the same. And while I had been aware of the hypergenderization of clothes and toys I had not thought to connect it to the modern backlash against it and I appreciated Davis's insights here.
I do feel that the book was adrift, exploring a lot of different ideas and not grounded in much that is objective. The idea that men and women are opposites ends of the spectrum is such a deeply ingrained one that while I agreed with Davis that it is not right to limit what a girl can be and what a boy can be, I wish she had come to a point where she questioned whether men and women truly are opposites. While there are differences between men and women, there are vastly more things that overlap and are similar. Men and women are not opposite ends of some spectrum. We are more similar than different.
And as the mother of a son who loves sparkles and Minecraft and a daughter who wants to be a firefighter and a ballerina, I witness the beauty of not letting sex be a narrow box every day.
Overall, would recommend.
While reading this book I gained an appreciation for how the concept of the tomboy created space and a cultural acceptance for girls to challenge the cultural norms and felt the lack of a similar concept for boys to do the same. And while I had been aware of the hypergenderization of clothes and toys I had not thought to connect it to the modern backlash against it and I appreciated Davis's insights here.
I do feel that the book was adrift, exploring a lot of different ideas and not grounded in much that is objective. The idea that men and women are opposites ends of the spectrum is such a deeply ingrained one that while I agreed with Davis that it is not right to limit what a girl can be and what a boy can be, I wish she had come to a point where she questioned whether men and women truly are opposites. While there are differences between men and women, there are vastly more things that overlap and are similar. Men and women are not opposite ends of some spectrum. We are more similar than different.
And as the mother of a son who loves sparkles and Minecraft and a daughter who wants to be a firefighter and a ballerina, I witness the beauty of not letting sex be a narrow box every day.
Overall, would recommend.
September 27, 2020
What's in a label? A lot, it turns out. In one of my favorite anecdotes in this book, a writer remarks how proud she felt as a kid when her best friend told her, "My mom said we're tomboys." "It was a pretty magical moment of mutual and self-identification, and I just don't think I would have felt the same way if she'd said to me, 'My mom said we're gender nonconforming.'"
I picked up this book thinking I was going to get an exploration, defense, and celebration of tomboys throughout history, both real (people like Amelia Earhart, Louisa May Alcott, etc.) and fictional (Jo from 'Facts of Life,' Frankie from Carson McCullers' 'The Member of the Wedding,' etc.). Instead, I got a deeper dive into the roots of the word, the backfire of the hyper-genderized 1990s, 21st century gender identity, and whether or not the label "tomboy" can or should exist alongside modern terms like non-binary and trans and genderfluid. The book does get a little repetitive, and I wondered why the author used the word "sissy" several times throughout the book without defining/explaining/negating the term, for surely if "tomboy" is seen by some as harmful and derogatory, then "sissy" is too. But she doesn't spend much time on why it's socially ok for girls to be 'masculine' but not ok for boys to be 'feminine,' which I feel might have rounded out the book better.
Ultimately, I think what the author shows is that the labels we choose to apply to ourselves are the ones that are most imporant. If you want to be a tomboy, be a tomboy. 3.5 stars.
I picked up this book thinking I was going to get an exploration, defense, and celebration of tomboys throughout history, both real (people like Amelia Earhart, Louisa May Alcott, etc.) and fictional (Jo from 'Facts of Life,' Frankie from Carson McCullers' 'The Member of the Wedding,' etc.). Instead, I got a deeper dive into the roots of the word, the backfire of the hyper-genderized 1990s, 21st century gender identity, and whether or not the label "tomboy" can or should exist alongside modern terms like non-binary and trans and genderfluid. The book does get a little repetitive, and I wondered why the author used the word "sissy" several times throughout the book without defining/explaining/negating the term, for surely if "tomboy" is seen by some as harmful and derogatory, then "sissy" is too. But she doesn't spend much time on why it's socially ok for girls to be 'masculine' but not ok for boys to be 'feminine,' which I feel might have rounded out the book better.
Ultimately, I think what the author shows is that the labels we choose to apply to ourselves are the ones that are most imporant. If you want to be a tomboy, be a tomboy. 3.5 stars.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 92 reviews