Blergh. There is nothing more I hate than this. I hated it as a child, and I hate it now. It's why I quit my Brownie troop. We embroidered, learned to make beds, hosted the Daddy-daughter dinner. Boys? They did cool stuff. I lived in the desert. I needed to know how to get help for a rattlesnake bite too! I also wanted to learn how to start a fire and build stuff. Most girls do!

So.Unfair. Thanks, Scholastic. 30 years on and the same old same old.

I was also a Brownie drop-out. The boys learned to build fires and we learned to build smores.

I can not believe either that I am still looking at that attitude 30 years later. (Although hopefully the Brownies have changed.)

PS. I can't believe you learned to make beds!!

No it is not just you, it is really icky. I don't think it would be so offensive if the books weren't paired so as it to set up an either/or model. Versus the choices or "and" model you give re body surfing and Seventeen.

I like the suggestion that girls will lead lives of glamour and idleness while boys will exist in this terrifying post-apocalyptic landscape where they're having to treat snake bites and sew their own sucking chest wounds shut.

Oh. My. Goodness.

I learned to build a fire, tie knots and identify all ninety-some points on the compass, but our pseudo-Scouts were through our church. (Which meant I also got to arrange flowers, decorate cakes, décopauge and do fabric painting, if I felt like it.) AND is always a better choice than Either/OR. And the PINK COVER disgusts me like wow and gee whiz. I can see it's meant to be retro, but honestly, who thinks girls no longer know how to be girls? Uh, old men?

I didn't think about it Jonathan but you're right - we've got two alternate earths here! I wonder if Scholastic realizing they are publishing science fiction?

You'll be happy to know that the actual galley of the pink one is even more horrifying it appears to be in the catalog.

Oh great, that's just what I needed to know Melissa.

Will somebody please tell me if girls and boys actually go for these books?

This is part of the same series Scholastic launched in an attempt to capitalize on The Dangerous Book For Boys (and The Daring Book For Girls), and they must have thought that all they needed to do was retread 1950s values to capture the market.

Their Mom and Dad books are no better. And, no, last I checked, no kids actually touch these books at all. They repel any advance the way classical music repels teens at the mini mart.

I wonder if the market they are looking for is the grandparents - that would explain the dated look and content a bit more. (And Grandma and Grandpa do buy all those birthday gifts....)

The Dangerous book... (the one that started this all) never bugged me much because it seemed a combo tongue in cheek/ deliberately retro. Reminding me of the old book I like to find and read (a hobby since high school.)

It bugs me that the first book has been used to create all these boy/girl books that play into sexist attitudes, sexism, and limits rather than expands a kids life. In truth, I think more girls than boys would have the confidence to read the "boys" books than boys would read the "girls" books. I really hope there aren't kids (and adults) out there who believe the boy/girl divides that these books appear to promote.

Some girls may indeed like the glam book; and some girls may like the survival one.

Too bad the people designing these books didn't spend a bit more time coming up with different titles. "The Kids Book of Survival", "How to Live a Glamorous Life" (or something else that appeals to both sexes). Keep the retro fonts, covers, structure, but get beyond gender.

The book I want to read is How to Survive Glamorously. It would tell the reader how to suck the venom from that snake bite with style and how to change a sucking chest wound from a fashion don't to a fashion do at any soiree!

My Girl Scout troop taught me how to sew, how to cook, and all about pores. I also learned about first aid, how to hide food from bears, archery, and how to dig an outdoor toilet. It was a good balance.

These books would be great if they weren't aimed at a particular gender! Grrrrrrr.

Liz & Jennie: Yes to both of your comments - I almost think the editors/writers were just lazy here. Instead of making books that would crossover and appeal to kids of either sex with similar interests, they took the easy and predictable way and have come out with something that I think will appeal to very few.

And Andrea your idea is the best I've read yet: It would tell the reader how to suck the venom from that snake bite with style and how to change a sucking chest wound from a fashion don't to a fashion do at any soiree!

I SO want someone to write that book!

Yeah, I'm with Andrea!

I mean, the Kiki Strike book of ... breaking and entering, and which drugs could be used to immobilize someone while they were playing mummy. Or, the Flora Segunda book of swordfighting. How to do it and where to strike a crippling blow so you could get away and make Rice Krispie treats to share with your compatriots -- recipe with red hots included...

That is such a good idea TadMack. You could include how to assemble the best spy kit ever (via Harriet) and what about all the sneaking around the kids from "Mysterious Benedict Society" had to do? (Didn't the crawl through ceiling vents or something?)

Take all the YA and MG fiction from the past few decades and find all the stuff a kid could conceivaly learn how to do (i.e. no magic wand necessary) and put it in a book.

Now that I would buy!