The Dangerous Book for Boys by Conn and Hal Iggulden is making waves with social commentators. 

Although I have searched Amazon.com and cannot find the book, it apparently is selling quite well in the UK and Australia, and supposedly is available here in the US.

The problem with the book is it takes the attitude that "boys will be boys" and that the genders are quite distinct from one another.

Condemnation arises because The Dangerous Book breaks the dominant and politically correct stereotype for children's books. It presents boys as being deeply different than girls in terms of their interests and pursuits. Although it is highly probable that bookstores will sell the book to girls who then will go on to practice skimming stones, nevertheless the genders are separated within the book's pages.

Even if this goes against current thinking, what's the big deal?  If people want to publish ideas like this, and others want to read them, so what?  Freedom of the press means ideas we don't like can circulate as well as ones we approve of.

Besides, do we really understand what gender is and how it is brought about?  How much is genetic and how much is conditioning?  I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer.

One thing in this review on Foxnews that I do agree with is the notion that we are overprotecting our children.

The sort of fun promoted has also raised eyebrows. In a society that is preoccupied with safety, The Dangerous Book promotes activities in which boys are likely to get scuffed. This is a book for tree-climbers who occasionally pause to decipher enemy code or erupt into wood-wielding pirate fights.

Why would the Iggulden brothers imperil children?

Clearly they do not think the rough-and-tumble of boyhood constitutes a health hazard. Perhaps they agree with parents who view over-protectiveness to be a greater danger, who wish to stir the imagination and muscles of their children instead.

But the brothers wish to achieve more than this. In a world where children are isolated behind computer screens and iPods, they wish to establish a niche for old-fashioned childhood.

Although I would argue that "old fashioned childhood" is largely a construction of our imaginations, I still agree that today's children are too pampered, too watched over, too isolated inside air conditioned suburban houses whereas a mere 30 years ago I was not only permitted but encouraged to roam outside, either by myself or with my freinds.  My mother wanted us out of the house, and we cooperated:  we rode bikes, we played football, we built forts, we explored.

In that sense, today's children have lost what I enjoyed.  And is that to their benefit?  I'm not sure.

The link:  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202064,00.html