New Book Revives Lost Notions of Boyhood

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

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).


I have made no comments on the book whatsoever. I haven't read it, so I
don't know what it actually says.

However, what you have written would seem to indicate that you fail to
recognize the potential harm done by titles like this, that further the
stereotypes that boys like to do dangerous stuff while girls like to
have tea parties. As it is, more understanding is necessary of how much
of the average differences are really inate, and how much culturally
created -- and anything that further marginalizes those girls that like
dangerous play and those boys who do not is, potentially, problematic.
(Note that I say potentially, not absolutely. What's more, I have no
problem with acknowleging where there ARE differences in the average
approach of boys and girls.)

Although things are better than when I was a kid, those children who
don't fit their gender stereotype still face some real difficulties. I
would prefer to see that minimalized, and fear that titles like this
will, instead, reverse the trend.

--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

dragonlady wrote:

However, what you have written would seem to indicate that you
fail to recognize the potential harm done by titles like this,
that further the stereotypes that boys like to do dangerous stuff
while girls like to have tea parties.

Like I said, the vast majority of boys are "boy-like" (I think that was
your term); writing a book for them does not automatically
"marginalize" anybody. If you feel it does, then you are perfectly
free to write a similar book for girls or for boys who are not
"boy-like". But the authors should not be accused of marginalizing
anyone simply because they chose a title that would appeal to the vast
majority of boys.

As it is, more understanding is necessary of how much of the average
differences are really inate, and how much culturally created -- and
anything that further marginalizes those girls that like dangerous
play and those boys who do not is, potentially, problematic. (Note
that I say potentially, not absolutely. What's more, I have no
problem with acknowleging where there ARE differences in the average
approach of boys and girls.)

Although things are better than when I was a kid, those children who
don't fit their gender stereotype still face some real difficulties.
I would prefer to see that minimalized, and fear that titles like this
will, instead, reverse the trend.

Again, that sounds like political-correctness raising its ugly head.

No one can write a book (or title one, for that matter) that appeals to
everyone. Any such book, written (or titled) to appeal to all, would
probably be of interest to none. Almost anything written by anyone
will lack appeal to someone -- does that mean the author intended to
marginalize them? Of course not.

To take an example from an earlier time, girls were reading "Scouting
for Boys" almost from the day Baden-Powell published it back in 1908.
Thankfully, the forces of political-correctness weren't around to tell
BP he should change his title for the sake of "inclusiveness" or
because girls felt "marginalized".

Instead of complaining, the girls formed their own organization, Girl
Guides (AKA Girl Scouts in the US).

In the case of this book, if you feel girls are (or potentially could
be) marginalized by the title, instead of changing the title, write
your own book!

By the way, dragonlady, I'm not trying to pick a fight. If I
mis-characterized what you said or believe, I apologize.

What looks to me like "political-correctness" may be very passionately
held beliefs by those who espouse them.

We don't have to agree -- but I don't mean to demonize you or anyone
else, either, for what you believe.

Fred Goodwin, CMA wrote:
By the way, dragonlady, I'm not trying to pick a fight. If I
mis-characterized what you said or believe, I apologize.

What looks to me like "political-correctness" may be very passionately
held beliefs by those who espouse them.

We don't have to agree -- but I don't mean to demonize you or anyone
else, either, for what you believe.

My personal point of view is that the range of activities that are
reportedly described in this book need to be made available to all kids who
are interested in them. I know that I enjoyed them as a girl. Categorizing
them as "for boys" seems like a step backwards to me. Categorizing ANY
activities as "for boys" or "for girls" seems like a step backwards to me.

Fred Goodwin, CMA wrote:

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).
---------------------
When we were building forts and hidaways in the woods, the girls were
as hot into it as the boys were. I don't see it as a sex-linked need,
ALL children need to play in the woods without supervision except that
of each other.
Steve