we are raising a nation of sissies.... we have become a nation of sissies.... look what we've allowed our leaders to do just to be "safe"
IMHO, but what do I know, right freeduck?
No, I agree with that. I just don't want my daughter to be a sissy any more than I want my son to be one.
FreeDuck wrote:No, I agree with that. I just don't want my daughter to be a sissy any more than I want my son to be one.
we are on the same page there.
Yeah, me too.
We went to Minnesota recently, spent a lot of time at "the lake." Sozlet had a great time on the beach, building stuff, and trying to catch fish with a net. My dad said something like, "Maybe you should tell her to be nice to the fish..." He was worried the fish wouldn't survive the catching attempt. I had a hard time articulating why it was OK with me if she did kill a fish, then examine it carefully, etc. (the whole "poke with a stick" idea). She did "catch" an already-dead fish, and found it very interesting. I think that's all good.
I can accept that there are differences but I don't know how that translates to raising a girl, exactly. From everything I've read about this book, she'd be every bit as interested in it as most boys I know.
That's the thing. I think both my kids would enjoy the contents of the book (based on what I read) but that my daughter would see the words "for boys" and never open it.
I read ALL my sister's books with "for girls only" or similar on it
:wink:
Good point, Walter. What I should do is buy the book, and if my daughter won't read it because it says "for girls" then I'll say "don't be a sissy!" Kidding, but you're right. Maybe that's where I come in and show her that the Dangerous Book for Boys is also for Dangerous Girls.
Yeah, I was thinking something similar.
What bothers me is not so much the title per se as the claims and generalizations he makes in the article.
Quote:You only have to push a baby boy hard on a swing and see his face light up. It's not learned behavior -- he's hardwired to enjoy a little risk.
You also only have to push a baby girl hard on a swing and see HER face light up.
I'd probably go ahead and get the book and enjoy it, just kind of grrr a bit at the way he chooses to present the whole thing.
FreeDuck wrote:No, I agree with that. I just don't want my daughter to be a sissy any more than I want my son to be one.
Ah c'mon FreeDuck, you reason like a
girl! Can't do any better than that?
Typical. <Stuts off to get into a good fight with the boys. Kicks FreeDuck's doll on the way out.>
Walter Hinteler wrote:I read ALL my sister's books with "for girls only" or similar on it
:wink:
Same here, sort of. I didn't actually have any interest in reading the Babysitter's Club or the Sweet Valley High books (I had standards), but I could be found sneaking a peak at Nancy Drew and some of the less macho Judy Blume books.
That's what I wanted to say, somehow, at least.
(Well, actually I wanted to find out some 'secrets', to say it differently.)
FreeDuck--if I remember correctly the Code of the Schoolyard (4th or 5th grade edition), you're best means of retaliation is to start a rumor that Thomas has a crush on the new transfer student. If you're feeling really vindictive, I believe the proper procedure is to phone him tonight while pretending to be his actual crush, record the conversation, and then play it to the whole school tomorrow at recess.
Shapeless, is there something you want to tell us?
I know what you guys are saying, and I often indulged in my brother's Hardy Boys books. Still, I don't know if I would have read something that explicitly said it was for boys, unless it was out of an attraction to the forbidden, which shouldn't be underestimated.
FreeDuck wrote:I know what you guys are saying, and I often indulged in my brother's Hardy Boys books. Still, I don't know if I would have read something that explicitly said it was for boys, unless it was out of an attraction to the forbidden, which shouldn't be underestimated.
How about if your mother told you, "don't you touch that book, young lady, it's for boys only". My sisters would have grabbed it and started reading it in a nanosecond.
Exactly. I'd have it read from cover to cover before sundown.
There's an idea. Reverse psychology!
FreeDuck wrote: Shapeless, is there something you want to tell us?
Umm, no--it's not like I'm speaking from experience or anything, and especially not from a specific incident in 5th grade when that vile Melinda Dawkins thought it would be funny to... well, anyway, no, I wasn't trying to say anything of that sort at all. Is it getting warm in here, by the way? Think I'll step outside for some fresh air.
I've been thinking a lot about this as I putter around today and I'm thinking maybe the real issue is letting kids be kids.
Everything today is so overly sanitized, zero tolerence, politically correct, overly organized, that kids just seem like miniture adults. There doesn't seem to be much adventure left. We push them to be the smartest and reward them for being passive and we intervene every time they tattle - which is constantly.
The whole thing just drives me nuts.
