As you all know, The Dangerous Book for Boys, has been a huge hit in the U.K. and the U.S. Heck, I even saw one of its authors, Conn Iggulden, on Stephen Colbert. (If you ask me, the sign for breaking through in the U.S. is 3 minutes on Stewart or Colbert.)
When The Dangerous Book for Boys came out in the U.K., there was mention of an analogous "girl" volume. "The Great Big Glorious Book for Girls, out in Britain next month but so far without a U.S. publisher, promises to 'take women back to a time when we made cupcakes with our grandmothers, when girls weren't obsessed with all things pink (and) didn't wear 'Hot to Trot' T-shirts' at age 8," reports Bob Minzesheimer for USAToday. My first thought on The Great Big Glorious Book for Girls, when I read about it in the Guardian, was YUCK. And it still is. I hope it doesn't find a U.S. publisher. This dichotomy is exactly why I didn't make it in the girl scouts. I wanted to learn how to make arrowheads, start fires, and tie knots. Instead, in the Brownies, I "learned" to make beds, make stew for the father dinner, and embroider. I was out by the end of the year.*
Fortunately, Minzesheimer reports, The Daring Book for Girls will be out in October by Collins. It "promises chapters on 'Five karate moves every girl should know' and 'Famous women spies.'" Thank goodness. Now The Daring Book for Girls is a book I'll buy.
Minzesheimer also tells us that there are even more Girl books planned by publishers, the most reprehensible, in my opinion, being: "The Girls' Book: How to Be the Best at Everything, out from Scholastic Aug. 1, offers advice on making pom-poms and French braids."
I'm sorry, but don't girls have enough pressure to be the best at everything without throwing french braids into the mix?
*This post is not meant to be anti-Girl Scout. I do understand that troops vary from place to place. I just happened to be very unlucky.