![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
It's a SIMPLE FACT.
Jun. 7th, 2007 12:10 pmThere's an interview on Parent Hacks with the authors of The Dangerous Book For Boys. Parent Hacks asked them why they aimed it specifically at boys, what about girls? Their answer:
I suppose you could argue that heroic characters like Douglas Bader are inspiring for girls and boys, but that would be to come at it from the other side. It's not how we parcel them out - it's what works best that matters. The simple fact is that boys are inspired by stories of men being courageous and self-sacrificing much more than Jane Goodall and her chimps. That's part of accepting that boys are different to girls, really. No doubt some heroes are suitable for both, but in the main, boys take their values from stories about the men they could one day be. It's not just Edmund Hilary and Sherpa Tensing conquering Everest, it's the fact that they refused to say who reached the top first. That's what will get a boy, every time.
Yeah. Girls hate stirring human interest stories like that. Why the hell is he comparing Edmund Hilary to Jane Goodall? Could they not have both? Could they not write an interesting and exciting book for all children. Well, of course they couldn't. That would be madness. There is a sort of companion volume for girls, apparently, but it's not The Dangerous Book for Girls, it's The Daring Book for Girls. Arguably slight but important semantic difference there. We can't really strengthen the campaign to make women understand that they must avoid danger or risk attack/rape if we're encouraging them to seek danger. Also, daring is transgressive for girls. Knowing how to change a tire? Man's work! But they might let us play for a while.
If you absolutely squint then you could pretend that he's trying to say something about needing to promote homosociality, and cooperation instead of competitiveness. BUT HE ISN'T. It's the same stupid shit about the "innate" differences of boys and girls, and oh look, it just so happens that boys don't like girls, and girls will have to make do with whatever's left over. And in case we accidentally leave them something good, let's make it so that anything girly is automatically rubbish. Yeah!
Oh I hate everybody. When we went to see Sandi Toksvig and Bonnie Langford, Sandi Toksvig said that she was writing a book about great women in history to try and inspire girls, and the publishers insisted on bringing out an equivalent book for boys. Argh.
I suppose you could argue that heroic characters like Douglas Bader are inspiring for girls and boys, but that would be to come at it from the other side. It's not how we parcel them out - it's what works best that matters. The simple fact is that boys are inspired by stories of men being courageous and self-sacrificing much more than Jane Goodall and her chimps. That's part of accepting that boys are different to girls, really. No doubt some heroes are suitable for both, but in the main, boys take their values from stories about the men they could one day be. It's not just Edmund Hilary and Sherpa Tensing conquering Everest, it's the fact that they refused to say who reached the top first. That's what will get a boy, every time.
Yeah. Girls hate stirring human interest stories like that. Why the hell is he comparing Edmund Hilary to Jane Goodall? Could they not have both? Could they not write an interesting and exciting book for all children. Well, of course they couldn't. That would be madness. There is a sort of companion volume for girls, apparently, but it's not The Dangerous Book for Girls, it's The Daring Book for Girls. Arguably slight but important semantic difference there. We can't really strengthen the campaign to make women understand that they must avoid danger or risk attack/rape if we're encouraging them to seek danger. Also, daring is transgressive for girls. Knowing how to change a tire? Man's work! But they might let us play for a while.
If you absolutely squint then you could pretend that he's trying to say something about needing to promote homosociality, and cooperation instead of competitiveness. BUT HE ISN'T. It's the same stupid shit about the "innate" differences of boys and girls, and oh look, it just so happens that boys don't like girls, and girls will have to make do with whatever's left over. And in case we accidentally leave them something good, let's make it so that anything girly is automatically rubbish. Yeah!
Oh I hate everybody. When we went to see Sandi Toksvig and Bonnie Langford, Sandi Toksvig said that she was writing a book about great women in history to try and inspire girls, and the publishers insisted on bringing out an equivalent book for boys. Argh.
