Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

Oh, I see, boys get to be "dangerous" -- i.e., risk takers -- while girls get to be "daring" -- i.e., taboo breakers, who "dare" to break a rule. And we all know which irrational and constricting cultural taboos and rules are in question here. (You can start with "being smart at math." Or "repeatedly checkmating a boy in chess." Or "refusing to wear dresses or skirts." Or "rough-housing." Or "refusing to defer to men." Or "speaking your mind.") Is this really the message we want to send our kids? Especially when adult working women today are often criticized -- and blamed for their limited financial success relative to men -- specifically for not being "risk takers"? (See, e.g., Lisa Belkin's op-ed in the NY Times online, "Life's Work: The Feminine Critique" (Nov. 1 2007).) Meanwhile, here are the supposedly "daring" activities for girls to enjoy, as quoted from the Amazon editorial blurb: "female heroes in history [Amelia Earhart, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Marie Curie, no doubt], secret note-passing skills, science projects, friendship bracelets, double dutch, cats cradle, the perfect cartwheel [but not the perfect fastball or layup, of course] or the eternal mystery of what boys are thinking." I mean, excuse me while I crack open my flight bag! Then let's compare all that wonderful derring do to the things boys get to enjoy: "Simple instructions for coin tricks and paper airplanes alternate with excerpts from history such as Famous Battles and facts about ancient wonders of the world and astronomy. The dangerous aspect is more apparent in such chapters as Making Cloth Fireproof, and Hunting and Cooking a Rabbit, but also applies to the overall premise that action is fun and can be worth the risks. A section on stickball, for instance, includes advice to possibly flee the vicinity in the event of a broken window." Why ARE these books so aggressively gendered? Why couldn't the original "dangerous" book have welcomed ALL kids? Why did it have to create a clubhouse with a sign reading "NO GIRLS ALLOWED"? Why is it that knot-tying and paper-airplane-making only take on this hushed aura of holiness when they're used as a means to EXCLUDE someone? And why are girls then offered this pale Women's Auxiliary version? Is this so they'll all grow up and accept everything from the Masters Golf Tournament to 16% representation in the Senate without batting an eye? If you want to perpetuate the notion that Little Girls are Made of Sugar and Spice and Everything Nice, then by all means by this book -- but don't forget the pretty pink party dress and the black patent Mary Janes. But if you want to instill an old-fashioned sense of adventure and independence in your kids -- sons and daughters alike -- I highly recommend Arthur Ransome's "Swallows & Amazons," first published in 1930, and all the other books in that series. It's a story in which children - oh, the horror! - actually spend the summer camping out *all by themselves* on an English Lake District island, to which they also sail all by themselves. I can't think of a better role model for girls than the "Amazons," a pair of girl pirates who open the series by capturing the camp of the Swallows and holding them at bay with bow and arrow. [...]