h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

That was the essence of a comment made by a feminist in an item on Radio 4 yesterday about the publication of 'The Great Big Glorious Book for Girls'.
I wonder if she'd actually read the book when she slated the idea of a book for girls telling them how to sew/boil an egg as opposed to the adventurous activities suggested to boys. (I believe a similar book geared for boys is forthcoming.)

Fair enough, we shouldn't imply that only girls do those tasks & can't aspire to demanding careers. But sewing & cooking are pretty useful basic skills for anyone.
There's no getting away from it, girls are different from boys & tend to have different interests. Why can't we acknowledge that it's OK to tailor products for those who want them?
In fact, judging by the following extract, I don't think this book does suggest that girls are twee homemakers:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/main.jhtml?xml=/portal/2007/07/07/nosplit/ftfront107.xml

Note that the girls are obviously expected to make their own camp fire!

"(I believe a similar book geared for boys is forthcoming.)"

It was the publishing sensation of last year - The Dangerous Book for Boys. Boys get their stuff first, you see, because they're more important...

SoRB

From that article, it looks like a good read for a young Lady. And probably contains a lot that young lads could learn from as well. A shame that they aren't likely to read it, with the title it has.

I try to be a bit more balanced. My eldest grandchild is coming on 10 years old and she's developed a liking for reading. So to keep her interested, we found some introductory sets of what the missus considered 'classic' youth reading, the Nancy Drew mysteries, and the Hardy Boys mysteries or what-evers. The young Lady can choose which appeals more.

"Tin of baked beans
Find yourself a sturdy stick with a Y-shaped fork at one end. Dampen so that it doesn't catch fire, take the lid off a tin of beans and nestle the tin tightly inside the fork of the stick. Hold over hot coals and stir contents from time to time. Eat straight from the tin."

If you don't actually like bake beans or the people you're with, don't bother taking the lid off. Remember to leave the scene yourself.

There was an article on Radio 4 a couple of weeks back that reported on an experiment to see what toys boys and girls would choose if left to their own devices. Guess what? The boys played with guns and cars and the girls played with dolls.

When will this era of politically correct, risk averse madness end. We will end up with a generation of obese psychopaths, scared to venture more than an arms length from Mummy for fear of being abdcuted.

I was sat reading in the staff room yesterday when two work-experience girls from my old local secondary school derided "books are bad for you."

What chance that they'd read it or follow any of the tips and info?

"I was sat reading in the staff room yesterday when two work-experience girls from my old local secondary school derided "books are bad for you." "

How? I mean, yes it's not good if they fall on you from a great height, but in what other way can books be described as 'bad for you'?

If they were anything like the girls (or boys) at my old High School they probably based that assertion on the fact that eating, smoking or attempting to have sex with a book isn't particularly healthy...

>>
There's no getting away from it, girls are different from boys & tend to have different interests.
<<

I'm in total agreement that boys and girls are different from each other. But that doesn't mean that all girls like girly things or that all boys like boyish things.

The problem is that we live in societies that marginalise boys that play with dolls, and to a lesser extent girls who build fortresses. Obviously not all the time and everywhere, but it's still generally unacceptable in many places for girls and boys to stray too far outside of gender roles.

As I said I DO think that girls and boys are different from each other, but I think that distinct gender roles are much more socialised than biological.

So I don't really have too much of a problem with a book that is aimed at girls doing girly things, but I do have a problem with the society that says that boys shouldn't read it, or that it's the kind of thing that girls should like and want.

Why don't we get rid of the words 'boys' and 'girls' in the titles and have the 'Fun Book for Hard Kids' and the 'The Fun Book for Great Big Softies'.

There, everyone's happy.

See, NOW my imagination is sparked.

Stuff for hard kids:

Giving Chinese Burns.
Tying fireworks to cats.
Burning the back end off earwigs with a magnifying glass.
Pulling the wings off flies.
Playing murderball (like Rugby, but without rules).
Building bonfires.

Stuff for soft kids:

Giving a good performance when the recipient of a Chinese burn (main secret - don't let on to the other kid that it doesn't hurt that much)
Tying flowers to dogs.
Making daisy chains.
How to tell if you like butter using a buttercup on a sunny day.
Whistling a happy tune while getting the crap kicked out of you by the kids from the other book.

SoRB

"like Rugby, but without rules"

I thought that was called "Aussie Rules Football"

(KA: "HOW?" <--- that was my reply too. )

"Playing murderball (like Rugby, but without rules). "

Pancake football (coz you loiok like one at the end of a game)

More stuff for hard kids:

Playing British Bulldogs (And Not Getting Caught)
Waiting 'Til the Soft Kids have Built a Treehouse (Then Stealing It)
Giving Crow Pecks

Soft Kids

Dressing The Cat Up in a Bonnet and Putting it in a Pram (And Not Getting Your Eyes Scratched Out)
Avoiding Crow Pecks

Hard Kids - Playing with Action Man

Soft Kids - Playing with Barbie

No No No.

Hard Kids: Looking up Barbie's skirt then chopping her head of and using her as a casulty of war

Soft Kids: Dressing up Action Man as Ken and painting his nails.

Personally, I blame the pope.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/12/AR2007071200722.html