(To whoever bought copy of The Wonder Weeks for $137, please return it! It's not worth that much money. I feel horrible because I'm sure my recommendations have contributed to this insane arbitrage of the book. I'm figuring out a workaround for the shortage of copies, and will keep you updated.)
Book review of The Daring Book for Girls by Andrea Buchanan and Miriam Peskowitz.
Remember back when we were talking about* The Dangerous Book For Boys and speculating that the book for girls wouldn't be as cool?
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The Daring Book for Girls is right, right, right.
This book covers so many topics, from essential gear to pressing flowers to being a spy to karate moves to negotiating a salary to Latin and Greek roots to making a lemon-powered clock to queens of the ancient world. Stocks and bonds? In the book. Peach pit rings? In the book. Building campfires? In the book. Slumber party games, rules of basketball, math tricks, making friendship bracelets, book lists, and tons more.
Don't tell my sons, but this book has more cool stuff than the boy book does.**
Honestly, the only essential thing I can think of that isn't in the book is rolling your own tampon from toilet paper in an emergency. (The target audience for the book is 8 and up, though, so tampons aren't an issue for the younger end of the audience.) Even wearing high heels is in the book, in the section on dangerous things. With a note that once you get good at it, you can even run and do karate moves in high heels.
I was lucky enough to go to the NYC reading the authors gave last week. One of the things they said was that they think it's vital to preserve so many of these "girl skills" that have been passed down from generation to generation, but have fallen out of favor because girls now are supposed to be tough. That really resonated with me. If I can be a CEO and also a knitter, then why should girls not learn how to braid friendship bracelets? By ignoring these traditional things that girls have done for fun, we're reinforcing a message that girls are only supposed to like certain things.
The other things Andi and Miriam said that was a big zing right to my solar plexus was that when they were looking around at other books for tweeners, so much of what they found was about makeup, and boys, and their bodies. So they specifically wrote a book that didn't deal with sex and makeup and bodies, but about being smart and capable and fun. They have a page about boys in the book that's remarkably sensible and human. I don't have a daughter, but this is a book I would have loved as a tween and would give to a hypothetical future daughter. I've already recommended it to at least a dozen people.
My mom called as I was writing this. I'd sent her the book after I finished it, because she's sort of the ultimate Girl Scout, and was always doing projects with me when I was a kid. Her review:
"I'm surprised at how much it looks just like one of the old Girl Scout manuals! It has that same look and feel, and encouraging tone that makes the girls feel like they want to do all the projects and learn all the facts. The disclaimer at the beginning that girls should do the projects exactly as written, and with an adult's help, was also important, because then they're spending time with an adult who can pass down the knowledge and tradition. I find the whole book fascinating, and you knew I would, [insert her embarrassing nickname for me here]."
Then she told me which ones of her friends she was going to show the book to today.
Buy the book. Did I mention that you should buy the book?
* I think it's fascinating that this discussion about gender and roles and toys and books is the most heated, vicious, and offended we've ever been on AskMoxie.org.
** In all fairness, I think that may be because the authors of the boy book are British and restrained, while the authors of the girl book are American and prone to excess. Ha. Kidding.
I'm glad to hear it is good, and I am a teeny bit more open to looking at both of those books now but still, the fundamental question for me is why do we have to pigeonhole ANYTHING as for boys or for girls? Yes, it's great that the girl book has tradtional and non-tradtional things but what if boys want to learn to knit? What if girls want to do something that's in the Dangerous Book? What if, heaven forfend, a girl is not interested in boys but perhaps prefers girls (and vice versa). Sure, they can read the other book, but will they? And if they do, will they be ridiculed by their peers? If they are teased, it is not the fault of the book, and it's a problem we as parents, teachers, and a society need to address. But simply by titling the books "For Boys" and "For Girls" the authors and publishers are adding to the divisive gender atmosphere in our culture. But had they been titled simply "The Dangerous Book" and "The Daring Book" they'd be open to everyone.
Let me be a little more specific. There is a student at the elementary school where I teach who has not determined where she fits in the gender norms. I have no idea what her sexual identity is and I don't think she does either. She dresses in a way that reads "boy" in our culture, and she likes to hang out with male friends. She's been teased and harassed her whole time in school as a result. She would LOVE "The Dangerous Book for Boys" but it would be a very dangerous act for her to read and be seen with that book. If I had the book in the library, she wouldn't get it, because it would be risking further persecution. If it didn't have "For Boys" in the title, I'd have it NOW and she'd have been one of the first kids to check it out.
It just frustrates me that we as a society can't escape gender-coding EVERYTHING. Did you see the photo-article in the NYT Magazine earlier this year with toys spread out in two kids' rooms? The girl's photo was a bubblegum explosion, while the boy's was a somber swath of navy and black with a little sky blue to lighten things up.
Posted by: Jen (yup, another one) | November 09, 2007 at 10:51 AM
Still torn on this one. I totally know about gender-specific marketing; I work in consumer magazine publishing for crying out loud. There are definite business reasons for pitching books the way these two have been pitched, and now that there is a good one for girls I feel a bit less annoyed about it.
BUT what I would really like to have is a book with say 200 pages the same and 5-10 different. Deliberately the same.
Because honestly, I do not think the message that we are WHOLELY different from each other is useful or helpful. Sure, there are kids - even most kids - who gravitate to things but guess what? If a child has a genuine interest in say, knots, he or she will gravitate towards stuff about knots. Unless the knots book is ONLY in the blue aisle at Toys-r-us or ONLY in the pink aisle.
And I use knots very deliberately here because "boys books" tend to present sailor knots and "girls books" tend to present friendship bracelets and guess what? THEY ARE ALL KNOTS! Yeesh.
I do think that these ways of _marketing_ - and I must emphasize that these decisions are A LOT about marketing and it was a very smart _business_ decision to have two respected authors create the girls' book - is pretty much like marketing wrinkle cream. Yeah, we all want the wrinkle cream, but it might be nice to have a society that accepted the wrinkles a little better.
Posted by: Shandra | November 09, 2007 at 11:01 AM
You know, this goes straight to the heart of the issues I had the second my twin daughters were born, and the wave of PINK EVERYTHING entered the house.
It took me a good bit of time to adjust to 'allowing' my girls the full range of freedoms I 'allow' my boys. That is, I was okay with boys knitting, painting their nails, hammering things, playing with dolls, playing pirates, painting, gardening, climbing things, getting grubby, paying attention to their 'look' (hair, BOOTS, clothes), playing with horses, etc., etc., etc. Dressup in girly clothes totally okay.
BUUUUUUT... when I imagined my daughters painting their nails, wearing girly clothes, gardening, paying attention to their 'look' (clothes, shoes, hair!), and playing with dolls, I just wanted to burst into tears or flee. NO NO NO NO NO! My girls would be... um. GAH. Themselves. DAMMIT. They would be allowed to be themselves. Which meant dolls and nailpolish if they wanted it. It was a huge wrench to realize that I was all set to cut off half the 'full human range' for my daughters, disapprove of or disallow things that my sons were entitled to do, JUST because those things were too 'soft' or 'social' or 'girly'. Just as horrifying (and possibly more) as parents refusing a child to explore gears and rock climbing because she's a girl.
It took me a few months (I think about 9), to work that through totally, to accept that pink and lavender were fine colors (provided that a full rainbow was also allowed), that nail polish (at least water-based) was not going to deprive them of opportunities in preschool (okay, so I was thinking professional world, but I was resistant from the get-go), and so forth.
As I explored the whole why-am-I-not-comfortable-with-girly thing, I got a lovely flashback to being about 2 1/2 or 3 years old, at a family reunion or large party event, and watching a girl about 3 or 4 (cousin) being 'girly' - she was wearing a gorgeous white dress with a ribbon belt, shiny patent shoes, and white tights. She could barely move, and was being admonished constantly to not get dirty, not run, not climb or play. Instead, older men (OOOOLD to my mind, probably 40's) were fetching her snacks and drinks, lifting her onto the picnic bench, and playing gallants to her fair maiden. GAG. I saw that she knew what she was doing, was willingly being a dressed up doll to be admired in exchange for her freedom. She looked me in the eye, me in my jeans and sweatshirt, and I could tell this was a choice she accepted (no matter that it was probably presented in ways she'd have been hard pressed to resist). It horrified me, that she could give up running and climbing for the sake of the pretty dresses and fawning attention (that I read even at that age as false). At the same time, oh GOD how I wanted that dress. It wasn't enough to be worth the sacrifice required, but I wanted it anyway. And at maybe 3 years old at most, I chose to discard girliness in favor of freedom. It's a choice I stuck with for a long long time (with a few exceptions I granted myself, for dressup events).
Now, at 41, I'm finally exploring the full range for ME, as well as trying to model that pretty doesn't mean not smart, not able, or not free; and likewise, free and able and smart doesn't mean not pretty. The world has changed, and wearing pink and dressing 'nice' doesn't come with a loss of freedom, necessarily. Engineers can wear nice shoes, a suit with a skirt can be a power suit, and tool sets come in pink.
Sorry for the endless comment, again. This one is one I'm still working through a bit, I suppose. Just count me glad that there's both 'traditional gender play' and 'just fun shit' and 'amaze your friends' stuff in this book. I'm for allowing girls to have the whole range, 'girly' (social, traditional, handcrafts, etc.) included.
Posted by: hedra | November 09, 2007 at 11:04 AM
As for the 'marketing to the kids by gender' thing, a different way to escape this is by getting '101 Secrets a Good Dad Knows' for yourself (mom or dad - again, sold by gender, but adults have a better sense of themselves), and just doing the stuff in there with them. It includes a wide range of things to do with either gender child, and it is for the parent to explore... plus, if a girl is found reading it, hey, it's her dad's book, what's the big deal? The gender isn't assigned at the 'child' level on that one, it's stuff for dads to go with their kids of either gender. (and I like the info better than the Dangerous Book for Boys, personally - the projects seem more fleshed out, maybe?)
Posted by: hedra | November 09, 2007 at 11:10 AM
Whereas I can see the concern for pigeon-holing any particular hobby or activity into forever being girl things or boy things, it was not my gut reaction when reading the review. Frankly, I think the book sounds just plain cool. I remember doing all those things and I don't recall every thinking I was doing them because that is what girls *should* do. I just enjoyed doing them and I'd bet dollars to donuts that I'd find similar things in the boy book, too.
Maybe I have a more-than- average blase attitude towards gender bias, but I've always thought that feeling feminine, confident and all that good stuff comes from knowing yourself and doing what makes you feel good. I hope to instill that sort of thinking in my own daughter.
In other words, just because the book has "girls" in the title and the cover is pink doesn't mean you can't use it as a tool to teach your kids, both boys and girls, individuality and that they can do anything they set their hearts on. (At the risk of sounding cheesy.)
Where I would be truly worried is if these types of books were used in an effort to try and steer a tomboy back to barbies, so to speak, and vice versa. That's a whole other talk show, however.
Posted by: Sarah | November 09, 2007 at 11:25 AM
Grew up girly in a family of two daughters. Now I have two daughters and I'm trying not to push anything too gender specific. Younger sis likes anything big sis does, and big sis is all about trucks, construction, and hockey right now, and says that pink is her favourite colour. I've been warned that her princess phase is coming (oh, please God, not that), because apparently it happens to even the little tomboys. Really, I'm just faking it and keeping her away from anything involving disney princesses.
Posted by: mamasutra | November 09, 2007 at 11:48 AM
Also: you can roll your own tampon out of TP???
Posted by: mamasutra | November 09, 2007 at 11:48 AM
I bought the Boys book for my husband from my 2 month old daughter for Father's Day with the card "Anything boys can do, girls can do better." I think the book is great. I'm excited to get the Girls book now. I want my daughter to wear pink and know how to make friendship bracelets, but also know how to tan a skin and tie a knot.
The title is just words. The inside is the important part and can be used for anyone.
Wow...really wish they included the tampon thing. Maybe Moxie can give us lessons?
Posted by: heather | November 09, 2007 at 11:52 AM
Am I the only girl who would have read "The Dangerous Book for Boys" BECAUSE of the fact that it said for boys? I was very "Ha! I can do anything boys can do!" when I was younger. I still am, but a little more toned down. Personally I like both of the books. I plan/hope on educating my kids so they know they aren't restricted just because it says "For Whatever" on the cover of a book.
Posted by: Gretchen | November 09, 2007 at 11:54 AM
"The title is just words. The inside is the important part and can be used for anyone."
Not arguing with your core point! But, the title is the marketing, in the book business. When we buy a book with a gendered title, we are definitely encouraging more. (As well as the contents, but still.)
Posted by: Shandra | November 09, 2007 at 11:58 AM
My parents did a great job of raising us to be who we are, without regard to gender stereotype, but also without going overboard and denying us things that we were interested in that were too "girly" or "boy-y." (Boy-ish? Why isn't that a word?)
So, we all (boy and 2 girls) know the basic skills of cooking, sewing, and changing motor oil. When I wanted a horse, I had to help build a barn. But it was also ok when I gravitated towards making Barbie clothes and my brother enjoyed model rockets more than I did.
So, balanced upbringing, plus a middle-of-the-pack innate sense of girlyness. Whether it's nature or nurture, I just find the Daring Book for Girls MUCH more interesting than the book for boys. I even like the cover color better. (It's somewhere between robin's egg blue and a vivid teal, whereas the boy book is red, red, red.)
Famous battles? Made me a little uncomfortable. But queens of the ancient world? That's AWESOME. Knots do not really catch my interest. (What purpose do they serve?) But friendship bracelets? I was the champion in my school at making friendship bracelets!
There were some really fun-sounding things in the boy book (bought it for my husband) but there's just so much more in the girl book that got me excited. (Tree swings! Yippee!)
So, for me, there's no question that boys and girls are different, and, as a group, will be interested in some different things. The question is how to keep that from being limiting, and how to not make the outlying data points and kids who don't neatly fit into gender norms feel restricted or left out.
My daughter is too young to read, but I plan to have both of the books sitting on her bookshelf.
Now, what do we do about the fact that all of the baby clothes put kittens on girl stuff and puppies on boy stuff? I think that the difference between cat people and dog people can be a bigger gulf than the gender divide!
Posted by: Kathy | November 09, 2007 at 12:01 PM
Just for the record, the cover of the book is blue. And there's so much more inside it than friendship bracelets. No tanning of skins, but how to be a spy.
Also, maybe it didn't come across in my review, but there's absolutely nothing in the book indicating that girls should be romantically interested in boys. That was kind of the point for the authors.
Tampon rolling 101: You're in the stall, freaking out because you got your period and have no tampon. Look at the TP holder to see if there's any there. If not, you're in trouble and may have to ask your neighbor, or, if there's no one else in the bathroom, scoot to another stall in a hurry. If there is, start rolling the sheet up tightly into a cylinder. Keep going and going until you have a diameter about half the size of what you think you'll need. Rip the end off the roll, fold the cylinder in half lengthwise, and insert. It should carry you through until you can buy some real tampons or pads.
Posted by: Moxie | November 09, 2007 at 12:17 PM
Oh, also, you guys don't realize it, but the publisher had NO intentions of doing a book for girls when they originally published the Dangerous Book for Boys. None. So Andi and Miriam pitched the book themselves. If they hadn't written it there wouldn't have been one for girls at all.
Posted by: Moxie | November 09, 2007 at 12:22 PM
Do you know, Moxie, how many books I've bought just from reading your blog???
*sighs* here's another one.
Thanks!
Posted by: Jessica | November 09, 2007 at 12:39 PM
I bought it already for Mouse. :) It's going on the couple-years-ahead shelf right next to Harriet The Spy.
I had many of the same struggles as hedra, though of course no boy children first. But I instinctively wanted no pink anything for my baby girl, no ruffles, etc. ...and then I remembered my 70s feminist mom's attempts to raise us "gender neutral". Now, some of these were awesome--we had a book about government that said things like "congress is a place where men go to make laws and run things"--every single one of those, my mom typed out teeny labels that said "people" and pasted them over "men". Yay! But all our toys were blocks and board games and when we asked for dolls, we were given boy dolls. My mom made snotty remarks about women who shaved their legs or wore makeup or paid "too much" attention to clothes (she relented somewhat later). She was careful not to tell me and my sister we were pretty, because that was silly, etc.
It's not that I was terribly traumatized by this, but you know, now that I'm grown up (36 if that matters for the exact brand of gender-neutralism in vogue during my childhood) I like pretty clothes and shoes and a little makeup. Nancy Drew, lest we forget, was always fighting bad guys in a tangerine evening gown and I think that's cool. Jacks and jumprope and girl playground culture have lots to recommend them. So, I'm trying to be different with Mouse. I want to give her the opportunity to do whatever she wants, and to see me model a lot of it including dressing up and giggling. I tell her she looks pretty all the time. I hope I'll teach her that pretty isn't as important as her character or her accomplishments, but it's real and fun and she should enjoy it.
It's really hard to balance not wanting to exclude, but also wanting to have something special. (And I'd frankly worry much more that boys won't read a girl book than that girls won't read a boy book.) I thought this book, which was delightfully sparkly without being pink, does a nice job overall.
Posted by: Charisse | November 09, 2007 at 01:04 PM
I'm really glad to hear that this book is so well balanced! I don't know how or why, but I was very balanced growing up. Pink was my favorite color, but I loved to climb trees. I loved to play with dolls, but also loved to pretend to be G.I. Joe characters with the boys. As an adult, I am in a predominately male field, but I wear skirt suits and am well respected by my peers. I hope that my daughter will be similar in enjoying a wide variety of things, no matter which side of the gender divide they are considered to be on. It sounds like this book will be good for that.
I do have a problem with the "For Girls" and "For Boys" (I love the idea of just naming them "The Dangerous Book" and "The Daring Book") but Moxie made an excellent point that the publishers had planned only for the book for boys. I'm in general against the marketing for a specific gender, and I worry about the continuing impact that has on society. Let me explain...
Now I haven't read either book, but it seems to me that we (as a society) are getting much better at letting girls be girly and boy-y (I'm totally using that from now on), letting girls wear pink and blue, encouraging girls to like science and math in addition to reading and writing, etc. However, boys are still very limited in what is okay for them to be/wear/do/like as a boy.
My bigger issue with these books is that from what I understand, there are no things that are typically "girly" in the book for boys. Remember that post a while back about letting a little boy wear nail polish? I'll bet that's not in The Dangerous Book For Boys, because SO many people would not be okay with that, or are okay only if it's not pink. Why can't boys wear pink, if girls can wear blue? (And why don't we call it light red, like we do light blue?)
That being said, I will buy both books for my girl and any boy I may have and encourage them to read both. Maybe even laugh that it's a book for a specific gender when it sounds like it'd be fun for everyone! Because like everything in parenting, I beleive the context we parents present things in is so important and can rectify a lot of marketing and societal influence (I hope). And I'm going to get the book that hedra mentioned, too (thanks hedra!).
Sorry that was so long and a bit rambly. One last side note...
Wonder Weeks: Try the library! It's much cheaper than what it's going for on eBay!!
Posted by: caramama | November 09, 2007 at 01:22 PM
It sounds to me like the solution is to own both and make them equally available. Except for first-commenter-Jen's student, above (I hope she gets copies of both on the sly). It would be fun to somehow remove (or switch) the titles and see if that affected how kids approached the books.
On an unrelated note, Moxie, ARE you a CEO and a knitter at the same time?
Posted by: emily | November 09, 2007 at 01:33 PM
Caramama, there are things in the Boys book that are more 'girly' in current expectations - like making marbled paper, and caring about grammar. Not loads, but enough to say that artistic urges and the importance of being correct and communicating well are IN the Boys book. That's one of the few reasons I consider that book at all (though the main reason I didn't bother with the Boys book is that the sections are too light on most subjects to really capture my interest, and is not in-depth enough in most ways to really interest my sons - who want to know the details of the Horsehead Nebula, not the names of the planets ... geeks raised by geeks, in so many ways! LOL!).
Posted by: hedra | November 09, 2007 at 01:54 PM
You could always take a big fat marker to the cover and add the phrase AND BOYS or, or the other book, AND GIRLS to the offending title. It's kind of a hokey solution, but you're not censoring anything. When my sister and I were little, my folks realized that even with their best efforts, a lot of our storybooks were reinforcing gender roles they wanted us to be able to transcend, so they just markered up the books themselves - turned pants into skirts, short hair into long hair, etc - so as to get the books more in line with the values they wanted us to pick up. This technique may very well horrify purists in the community who are opposed to marking up books for any reason, but I appreciate, as an adult, the lengths my parents went to to help my sister and I feel that we could be anything we wanted to be when we grew up.
(We were allowed/encouraged to play everything from Firefighter to Princess Sleeping Beauty, FYI.)
Posted by: dregina | November 09, 2007 at 02:25 PM
I bought a copy for Xmas at Costco. (only $13!). When I peeked at my receipt it said "Bk-Darling." After all of the ado about the boys book, it made me laugh. I started to wonder if it really was called the "Darling Book for Girls" and was relieved to see it really say the "Daring Book for Girls" on the cover.
Posted by: Sarah | November 09, 2007 at 02:31 PM
hedra: Thanks for letting me know about the content in the book for boys. It's good to know that it's a little more of the artistic side of things in the book! And I'm with you on the geeks raising geeks! I can't wait to see how the Pumpkin turns out!
Also, I love the idea of marking up or putting labels over offending words, and I'm in general a purist who hates even dog-earring pages!!
Posted by: caramama | November 09, 2007 at 02:41 PM
wow, i had forgotten how heated we all got last time...
i'm not sure how i feel about all this, i imagine i don't care so much that so many things are marketed to boys and girls specifically as long as we aren't implying with either that one is superior to the other. that to me is the greater issue here- and from what i've read about both books, i don't think either implies that whatsoever.
quite frankly, i'm just not sure i *want* to live in a genderless society. i like being a woman, a female, and i liked being a girl. i wasn't ever super-girly, i enjoyed playing with gender-neutral toys and "boy-marketed" toys, and feel as though most of the people i know from my generation did as well. perhaps this is the legacy of being the children of the feminist era? sort of a backlash to all the "equal in every way!" mentality?
i guess i'm just not as threatened by both genders embracing and enjoying what makes them unique as long as we don't imply that one is better. that to me is how i want to raise my children- to understand that no matter what gender you feel most comfortable dwelling in, it doesn't make you any better/smarter/superior to anyone else, ever. what i would not be on board with would be if these books promoted false stereotypes about either gender (girls gossip! boys fight!), or encouraged continued ignorance of either gender.
i'm all for equality, but i also think it's ok to tell kids/adults that they can enjoy what makes them *them* if they'd like, based on their gender, as well as a variety of other factors.
Posted by: pnuts mama | November 09, 2007 at 02:49 PM
"Oh, also, you guys don't realize it, but the publisher had NO intentions of doing a book for girls when they originally published the Dangerous Book for Boys. None. So Andi and Miriam pitched the book themselves. If they hadn't written it there wouldn't have been one for girls at all."
Maybe, but that's a pretty short ended view. Yes, they pitched. But the publisher said yes, where they said no to 500 other pitches.
If I were the publisher, I would have looked at the sales on the boy-oriented one and the sales numbers for girl-focused titles in our stables before I said yes. I also think there is a huge boomer memorabilia/nostalgia factor going on in the first book; your mum's statement about "the old girl scouts books" suggests that might be a factor here - and the grandparent market is huge.
I would definitely bet a doughnut and a cup of coffee that if the boys' book had tanked the girls' book would not have happened. And yes, as a publisher I would have a takeaway message about segmented audiences there (not that publishers don't already do this).
I'm not saying it doesn't have editorial merit though. In fact I think the girls' book probably has better editorial content than the original boys' book, which really was more of a nostalgia pitch.
Still, as a parent with X dollars to spend on books, one of my considerations might be whether a gender-neutral book of Questions & Answers would serve much of the same purpose. Not dishing on the book, just saying that just as I consider certain issues in my toy purchases, I also consider them in my book ones.
Posted by: Shandra | November 09, 2007 at 03:13 PM
i've been thinking about this all afternoon. i remembered how outraged and frustrated i get when confronted with sexism, often in the workplace, sometimes in academia (moreso from classmates who are from countries where women are second class citizens) and definitely in the church. i think it's not so easy for me to disregard the rampant sexism that still exists in the world today, and injustice of any kind is something that once we become complacent to it, it wins.
that said, i still don't have a problem with these books. normally, i have a real problem with barriers, of any kind, especially when put up to exclude people, usually for the purposes of one groups power/superiority. however, i don't think either of these books serve that purpose, necessarily. what i do think these books do, especially the one for girls, is allow each gender to embrace what is great and fun and unique about themselves, and let that empower them as they grow into well-rounded adults.
i don't there is anything wrong with marketing a book specifically for girls (or boys) as long as it doesn't prop up old stereotypes of inequality or inferiority. i think the power of either of these books could be encouraging creativity and curiosity and imagination of both genders, without saying "and that's what makes us better/smarter than the other sex", which, i think, is what many of us here are really afraid of, with good reason.
Posted by: pnuts mama | November 09, 2007 at 05:22 PM
damn, that wonder weeks book must be printed on gold paper. It's on sale at amazon.co.uk for £124! Yes that's pounds. That's $248!? Looking forward to reading it at some point.
Posted by: thalia | November 09, 2007 at 07:21 PM
The Wonder Weeks is a good book, but not that good. I imagine this person is having a difficult time and is hoping the book will provide the magic elixir. That we (yes, me included) go to such ends is depressing.
Posted by: S. Marie | November 09, 2007 at 08:08 PM
Are you sure the book was actually sold? I have sold items through Amazon and they are only listed for 8 weeks before the listing expires. Hopefully, that is what happened.
Posted by: Amy | November 09, 2007 at 10:03 PM
As far as pricey book goes...I've been searching for a copy of "The Wonder Weeks" for a couple months and the price for it is over 100 dollars no matter where I've looked. I've also found more than one place that said it was still in print and order-able. Unsure if that's good info or not.
I can say for sure how disgruntling it is to see folks take advantage of a situation? You'd think they found a drop of Elvis sweat or a peanut shaped like Hoover.
Posted by: Sarah | November 10, 2007 at 06:32 AM
a few weeks ago, a reader from canada mentioned that she found a few copies in a chain store that were selling for about $20.
keeping copyright laws and rights in mind, i seriously wish we could just find a way to list each "week" that throws you a big developmental curve, say what it is, and be allowed to discuss it.
i completely agree with the pp's who are disgusted with the way people are exploiting the demand for this book right now- i saw one on craigs list listed for $50. the lister mentioned that it was hardly used. which, in itself, says something. i'm sure the book fits many kids perfectly, and provides the answers that many sleep deprived mamas are searching for. but i'd be pretty annoyed if i spent more that the list price for a book only to find that my kid didn't fit the parameters of the weeks.
Posted by: pnuts mama | November 10, 2007 at 11:40 AM
Sorry, but this one is just as sexist as the "dangerous" book for boys. Heck, even the descriptor words used -- dangerous, for boys; daring, for girls -- are in some ways trite and sexist. I am really disappointed to see books with this kind of gender stereotyping still being produced at this point in time.
Posted by: Ariella | November 10, 2007 at 12:28 PM
So, we're in kind of a retro wave of encouraging/embracing gender "norms" these days - we'll see how our children think of all this when they're adults. I'm not saying that these books aren't fun and enjoyable, but I do think it's really interesting that we've kind of gone full-circle from the culture of many of our own childhoods and Free To Be You and Me and William's Doll and all that. I wonder what will be marketed to our grandchildren.
Posted by: Brooklyn Mama | November 10, 2007 at 11:32 PM
As far as listing when the Wonder Weeks are, and what to expect, there is a website (that someone posted here a few weeks ago, I think) that does just that:
http://cyh.com/HealthTopics/HealthTopicDetails.aspx?p=114&np=122&id=2312
It doesn't go into detail as to what the cognitive developments are at each stage, which would be helpful, and I think it gets one of the weeks wrong (well, wrong according to the book -- it says 44 weeks is "fussy" where the book says 46) but it does at least have a list of the "fussy" weeks and the "sunny" ones.
The issue of copyright is interesting. The above page has a list of references at the bottom, which includes the "Wonder Weeks" book, but also includes conference and journal papers by other people. This suggests to me that the IDEA of Wonder Weeks, or regressions as they seem to be called in the academic world, is not exclusive to Vanderrijt & Plooij, but is simply something that psychologists have observed generally. Calling them "Wonder Weeks" might be a copyright issue, but discussing when regressions occur, and for what possible reasons, wouldn't be, as long as appropriate credit is given to the researchers who did the original work to find that all out.
For me, the best thing about the book was knowing that this sort of thing happens -- that is, babies get fussy and clingy for reasons other than ones we can easily identify (like teething or other obvious discomfort). Whether your baby follows the weeks exactly or not, knowing that he or she is likely to be a cranky pants at some point(s) for some unidentifiable reason(s) and that (i) it's not YOUR fault as a parent, and (ii) the best thing you can do is to comfort them and give them lots of contact and love and reassurance and (very important) give YOURSELF a break, is a real sanity saver.
Posted by: Cassie | November 11, 2007 at 06:38 AM
To help me think clearly about messages that reinforce the assignment of gender roles, behaviors, and skills, I just switch the gender in the title with race or ethnicity. "The Dangerous Book for XXXXXX- Americans"... "The Daring Book for XXXXXX-Americans". Then I consider how I feel about it, and whether I think it could potentially reinforce power differentials already in play. Usually I get uncomfortable, and usually the answer is... yes.
Posted by: jesse | November 11, 2007 at 08:31 AM
Wow my Mom said the same thing about the Girl Scout Handbook! I pre-oredered two of them a few weeks ago for my tween neices and had to wrap them tonight so that I wouldn't ruin them paging through them between now and Christmas.
Posted by: Jessica | November 11, 2007 at 11:50 PM
Amazon France has TWW for 146 (Euros). What on earth has happened in the last 6 months???(this is actually a retorical question as I know what has happened in the last 6 months) I paid 4 (Euros) plus 6 delivery. Is there somoeone we can complain to??
p.s when my kid gets to wek 61, I'd be happy to even give my copy away (if so wants to pay postage from Itlay
Posted by: paola | November 12, 2007 at 04:48 AM
p.p.s. sorry about typos in last comment. Was in a rush
Posted by: paola | November 12, 2007 at 04:49 AM
This may not be an issue for a lot of readers, but a review of this book on Amazon said that there are some entries that might give some pause. To wit, the use of ouija boards, levitation games, and other "otherworldly" stuff. I don't know why the publishers thought these would appeal specifically to girls. I have the "Dangerous Book for Boys" and enjoy all the history and practical information in it...but the Girls' book had to have occult games and ouija boards? I find that insulting. If i had a daughter, I would not buy this book for her.
Posted by: Catherine | November 14, 2007 at 12:14 PM
Catherine, they put in the ouija board and "levitation games (light as a feather stiff as a board) because they're traditional slumber party games! And slumber parties are a traditionally girl thing, at least in the part of the US I'm from.
They explain why light as a feather stiff as a board works, too, which I thought was cool.
It's really not about the occult. It's about slumber party stuff. If you're offended about that you should probably be offended about the skinning of the rabbit in the boy book.
Posted by: Moxie | November 14, 2007 at 08:06 PM
I know they're traditional. When in college, I (stupidly) used an ouija board. Boy, were we surprised when things started flying around the room--and i am not joking. I wouldn't want my daughter OR son using anything that claimed to contact spirits of the dead. I'm wary of a book that includes (to me) questionable stuff like that, and I know there are other parents out there who would not want their kids messing with that.
And the skinning of the rabbit...well, if you're lost in the wilderness sometime, it's a useful skill to have if you need to eat. Using ouija boards? Not an essential skill.
I think the idea behind the Daring Book for Girls is an excellent one. I just wish they had put a bit more thought into that particular entry.
Posted by: Catherine | November 19, 2007 at 09:13 AM
I gave the book to a friend and she loved the book, didnt knew that the book was so popular.
Posted by: generic viagra | March 23, 2010 at 02:34 PM
I need a dress for graduation. I would like it to be edgy yet cute and girly at the same time. I love converse and i guess you could say I have a skater style. Any info is appreciated!
Posted by: cheap kamagra | April 27, 2010 at 02:16 PM
Climbing is a great and exciting adventure but when we climb on cliff or mountain you climb will have loose rock sections and is very important to learn how to avoid loose rock, rockfall, breaking handholds, and accidents.Only if you learn very well the techniques you´ll enjoy a lot without any accidents.
http://buyonline-rx.com/
http://buyonline-rx.com/sitemap.html
Posted by: buy viagra | September 29, 2010 at 12:08 PM
I like this book which protects so many subjects, from essential tools to demanding blossoms to being a spy to martial arts goes to discussing a income to latina and historical greek root base to making a lemon powered time to a queen of the standard world.
Posted by: הגנה עצמית | January 29, 2012 at 10:02 AM
That's not for real a spoiler, is it? I didn't even read aninhytg in it because I'm so scared of aninhytg being leaked to me I can't wait!!! I'm dying here!!! Only 2 more days!!! Reply:July 30th, 2008 at 12:00 pmIt's not a real spoiler. It's a spoof and way worth the read. Hits the nail right on the head.
Posted by: Charlene | April 02, 2012 at 12:09 AM
I would have liked as a teenager and gives to a theoretical upcoming girl. I have already suggested it to at least a number of individuals.
Posted by: הגנה עצמית | April 03, 2012 at 04:07 PM