The Dangerous Book for Boys

[BoGGiT]

First of all, sure things in this thread may have taken a turn to the political, and I guess I'm partly/mostly/entirely responsible for that. No more political, however, than the book itself. Not political in the way that it openly advocates or opposes an agenda of a given political party, of course, but the book does promote ideas with an undeniably political content. Thus, in a thread discussing the book, those who finds said ideas offensive should have a right to speak their minds about it.

EDIT: Also, the very act of deciding (in situations such as this) what's to be considered as "political" (and thus unwanted on these forums) and not, is in itself highly political. I know this can be extremely tricky and I'm sure admins and moderators are doing their best to provide us with forums that makes as many RPG fans as possible happy, but it's still important to remember that.

I'm not saying that we should raise children to fit a stereotype, but rather, that there is both anecdotal evidence and scientific evidence that there are certain behaviors more prevalent in males than in females (and vice versa). The entertainment value of some, not all, of these passtimes is hardwired into our sexually dimorphic primitive primate brains.

I find the whole idea of boys being natural-biologically pre-coded to like cars and guns while girls are pre-coded to prefer playing with teapots and care about clothes to be utterly ridiciolous, to put it mildly.

Its equally counterproductive to ignore those natural differences that exist as to reinforce those that don't.

Ignoring these "natural" differences? You mean so that people can live like whatever individuals they want to instead of being restricted by archaic and obsolete gender stereotypes? Why does that idea sound so horrible to you?

 

[Jdvn1]

Not political in the way that it openly advocates or opposes an agenda of a given political party, of course, but the book does promote ideas with an undeniably political content. Thus, in a thread discussing the book, those who finds said ideas offensive should have a right to speak their minds about it.

Since EN World doesn't allow any political discussion, if you have a political comment to make about a book (even if the book is political in nature), then you have to go elsewhere. Otherwise, the thread gets closed. And, if you insist on keeping up the behavior, then that gives mods incentive to ban you. I can't claim to know what the limits are exactly, so I stay on the safe side.

Try to keep the comments not political.

I find the whole idea of boys being natural-biologically pre-coded to like cars and guns while girls are pre-coded to prefer playing with teapots and care about clothes to be utterly ridiciolous, to put it mildly.

Though I agree, DannyA was just pointing out there are natural and important differences between boys and girls.

Which is true. Those examples are probably poor ones, but the point is no less true.

Ignoring these "natural" differences? You mean so that people can live like whatever individuals they want to instead of being restricted by archaic and obsolete gender stereotypes? Why does that idea sound so horrible to you?

I dont' think anyone here advocates restricting people's freedom of expression through any means, much less stereotypes.

We are, after all, mostly males in a male-dominated hobby (D&D) and a girl-gamer is to be revered.

 

[BoGGiT]

Since EN World doesn't allow any political discussion, if you have a political comment to make about a book (even if the book is political in nature), then you have to go elsewhere. Otherwise, the thread gets closed. And, if you insist on keeping up the behavior, then that gives mods incentive to ban you. I can't claim to know what the limits are exactly, so I stay on the safe side.

Ok, I will stop making such posts in this thread, and I will also try to avoid them in other threads in the future. I still stand by my point in my previous post though; claiming, for example, that this book is not political and/or politically controversial, and that it should not be discussed or criticized in such ways, such a claim is in itself highly political (and possibly even an offensive one, for some people).

Ok enough ranting, and no more politics, I promise

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I find the whole idea of boys being natural-biologically pre-coded to like cars and guns while girls are pre-coded to prefer playing with teapots and care about clothes to be utterly ridiciolous, to put it mildly.

You're reading a bit more into what I wrote than I intended.

You can try to raise children as gender neutral, and in the normative world, that's great. But we live in the real world, and there are real differences between the genders that have real consequences. Sexual dimorphism is a reality, both physically and mentally.

In multiple studies, boys have repeatedly shown a greater predisposition to enjoy those entertainment activities that involve & encourage aggressive behaviors than girls. (It has to do with us being primates, and what our brains are hardwired to do.)

That is in general, not guns in particular- guns are just a peculiarly American obsession. It could just as well mean hitting each other with sticks or throwing chestnuts at each other.

And definitely not toy cars, building with Legos, and the like. Those are gender neutral toys.

Just to be perfectly clear, my examples were taken from direct observation of children at play.

Ignoring these "natural" differences? You mean so that people can live like whatever individuals they want to instead of being restricted by archaic and obsolete gender stereotypes? Why does that idea sound so horrible to you?

Lets put it this way- I think that any woman who is physically capable of playing a professional sport at the professional level as well as a man should have a shot to play with the men. However, there are natural differences that are going to affect any woman making that attempt.

Women are generally shorter, less massive per increment of height, with different proportions of slow-twitch & fast-twitch muscles than men, with slightly different bone densities than men, and different (in this case, higher) endurance levels. In a full contact/collision sport, like American Football, Rugby, Hockey and so forth, some of those differences will translate into more injuries, less power etc.

Could they still compete? Sure- I have no difficulty believing that a woman playing American football could be just as accurate a kicker or passer as a man, or may be able to be a reciever. However, she will probably be too small to be a linebacker or lineman. She will probably be too short & slow to be a top reciever- many of the men have near-Olympic qualifier class speed- women that fast would have longer, more lucrative careers as track & field stars.

Even in a sport like baseball, that lack of power and speed hinders them at most positions. So they can't hit the ball out of the park- so what? Most men can't either. However, once again, that slight lag in speed will keep them from legging out grounders into singles.

OTOH, they are usually more accurate shooters than men- ask the Israelis about their women snipers.

If a woman came along, 6'5" tall, 200lbs, with 4.2 speed and hands as soft as a baby's butt, who wanted to play Pro football? I'd cheer her on. Ditto a woman with a 99MPH fastball and a curveball that breaks like Pedro Martinez'.

But even today, in the era of big dollar sports, no woman Pro athelete has successfully competed against a Pro male on a level playing field in any of the major sports*. Not even in golf.

They're getting close, but they're not there yet.

*Ignoring, of course, those sports where there are significant mechanical factors other than the athlete's own abilities- target shooting, horse racing, auto racing, etc. Women in those sports are just as competitive as the men. Ditto sports that are judged at least partially on aesthetics, like many of the X-games competitions.

 

[bento]

I finally got my hands on a copy at a local (Lewisville) B&N, and it looks to be a little too old for my 6 year old to handle.

There's more text than illustration, and it reminds me of some of the Childcraft books my sister and I enjoyed when we were kids. How to build a tree fort or a soap-box racer, how to play poker or table football with coins, and other stuff you either did as a kid or knew of other kids doing. Inter-mixed with the activities are "essential" knowledge for kids like basics on bugs, dinosaurs pirates, and famous battles.

As for the section on RPGs, it was about 2/3rds of one page and mentioned that they are good for interpersonal, writing and math skills.

I may buy it, but it's not a must-have at the moment. I might pick it up for our 10 year old daughter and let her get some enjoyment from it first.

 

[Jdvn1]

But even today, in the era of big dollar sports, no woman Pro athelete has successfully competed against a Pro male on a level playing field in any of the major sports*. Not even in golf.

What happened to that lady that tried to play golf with the men? If she didn't get last, then I'd call that a successful competition against some males.

And, still: Mixed doubles tennis.

 

[jaerdaph]

But even today, in the era of big dollar sports, no woman Pro athelete has successfully competed against a Pro male on a level playing field in any of the major sports*. Not even in golf.

Billie Jean King sure handed Bobby Riggs his butt when he challenged her to a battle of the sexes tennis match back in 1973.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I just stuck this on my Amazon baby registry the other day. I have never been a girl, but I have been a boy, one of two boys in a family, and whittling, skipping rocks, identifying dangerous snakes, and all the rest, are activities that certainly spoke to my prepubescent masculinity and, given that I'm not raising my as-yet-unborn boy in some sort of bubble, I imagine they'll speak to him as well. I'm looking forward to being Hero Dad to him.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

On the boys vs. girls thing, my wife, while neatening up the house in nesting mode, discovered I still had a stash of old Hot Wheels and Matchbox cars. And SHE used to collect them as well.

Now, while I and my friends used to take the toy cars out into the dirt and toss various size sticks, up through firewood, at cars to simulate them being bombed from the air, my wife would assign each car a personality and act out little plays on the couch at home with them, including having the cars date.

Nature or nurture, at the end of the day, girls and boys are different.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Billie Jean King sure handed Bobby Riggs his butt when he challenged her to a battle of the sexes tennis match back in 1973.

Bobby Riggs was 55 and out of shape when he played Billy Jean King, who was 30 and still in good shape. He spent 2 or so years at the top of the sport...in the 1940s. BJK retired with 39 Grand Slam titles and is considered one of the elite women athletes of all time.

Hardly a fair matchup.

What happened to that lady that tried to play golf with the men? If she didn't get last, then I'd call that a successful competition against some males.

There are guys on the pro men's tour who haven't won in their last 20 starts, but still qualify.

Babe Zaharias was the first woman to qualify for the men's PGA...in 1945.

The next to do so was Michelle Wie at the SK Telecom Open in 2006, and she has failed to qualify in seven other tournaments. It was an Asian tournament. Here are the leading final round scores (Wie tied for 35th).

01 - Prom Meesawat (THA) 69-64-68
204 - Lee Seong-ho (KOR) 67-67-70, Jeev Milkha Singh (IND) 68-66-70
205 - K J Choi (KOR) 68-72-65
206 - Hong Soon-sang (KOR) 71-66-69, Chapchai Nirat (THA) 68-67-71
207 - Kang Kyung-nam (KOR) 69-68-70, Iain Steel (MAS) 67-66-74
209 - Jang Ik-jae (KOR) 70-71-68, Moon Ji-wook (KOR) 70-71-68, Angelo Que (PHI) 71-69-69, Hwang In-choon (KOR) 69-70-70, Chinarat Phadungsil (THA) 71-68-70, Choi Ho-sung (KOR) 70-68-71, Lu Wei-lan (TPE) 72-66-71, Lee Won-jun [A] (KOR) 69-67-73
210 - Ari Savolainen (FIN) 69-72-69, Michael Wright (AUS) 73-67-70, Kim Chang-min (KOR) 72-72-66
211 - Mang Dong-sub [A] (KOR) 68-73-70, Hur In-hoi [A] (KOR) 68-73-70, Adam Blyth (AUS) 69-72-70, Eiji Mizoguchi (JPN) 71-72-68, Chris Rodgers (ENG) 71-72-68, Park Boo-won (KOR) 71-68-72, Choi Jin-ho (KOR) 70-68-73, 212 - Kim Hong-Sik (KOR) 70-71-71, Simon Nash (AUS) 70-71-71, Kim Chang-yoon (KOR) 76-66-70, Kim Dae-sub (KOR) 71-71-70, Charlie Wi (KOR) 70-73-69, Anthony Kang (USA) 70-68-74, Adam Le Vesconte (AUS) 65-71-76, Brad Kennedy (AUS) 67-68-77

Do you see any major names on that list? Did Wie finish 35th behind the elite of the sport, or just some other fairly good male players?

Annika Sorenstam tried in 2003 to qualify at the Colonial and didn't make the cut. She has, to the best of my knowledge, never even attempted to qualify again.

Se Ri Pak did finish 10th in a men's event, but it was a second tier event in Korea- not the same level of competition as in the PGA. Then again, she's only, what...17? She may still make it.

A 61 year gap between female PGA qualifiers & no winners on the men's tour. That is not exactly success.

Don't get me wrong- any one of them could beat me or anyone I personally know at golf...but I'm not on the PGA tour.

And, still: Mixed doubles tennis.

That is a game that is intrinsically designed to be played by mixed-sex teams.

Try a women's or mixed-sex team against a men's doubles tennis team. (I'm not an expert, but I believe they play under slightly different rules.)