dragonlady wrote:
In article . com,
"Fred Goodwin, CMA" wrote:

dragonlady wrote:

One of the big problems with some of this is where it leaves the
girls who are more "boy-like" and the boys who are more "girl-
like" -- I think we're better off using other types of descriptive
language, and offer all opportunities to children of both genders.

By definition, the vast majority of boys *are* "boy-like" and vast
majority of girls are "girl-like". Are we to ignore the needs of
those who are, simply so we don't offend those who aren't?

That sounds like a textbook definition of political-correctness to
me.

Where have I suggested that ANYONE'S needs be ignored? I am not
suggesting that stereotypical girls or stereotypical boys have their
needs "ignored" -- only that we don't use either language or formal
policies in such a way that those who do NOT fit those stereotypes
aren't harmed.

Sorry if I mis-understood your meaning.

So many people have complained about this book exactly because it *is*
written for "boy-like" boys, as if the authors meant to deliberately
exclude girls and boys who are not "boy-like".

For example, I've read articles complaining that the book is
mis-titled, because there will certainly be some girls who find the
book interesting. Well, more power to those girls, but I would not
suggest the title of the book be changed. Let the boys have their
book.

I say if the vast majority of boys are indeed boy-like, what's wrong
with writing a book that may appeal to them? If a minority of boys
don't like it, is that the authors' fault? Let others write books for
them -- but don't say the Igguldens shouldn't write a book that most
boys will enjoy (not that you are saying that, but others certainly
have).