The Wonder of Boys: What Parents, Mentors and Educators Can Do to Shape Boys into Exceptional Men

Rating:
Summary: Yes and No
Review: I have not read all of Michael Gurian's book, the Wonder of Boys. From what I have read of it, I can see that he is PARTLY right. Being an uncle five times with ONE nephew (rest nieces), and having taught Sunday School, I can see that a boy DOES need positive male influence. Though I believe in individual AFFIRM-
ING role definitions (NOT INDIVIDUAL-DESTROYING, like macho), I still see that ALL need to accept comfortably which gender one is
as PART of being in the image of God. It is NOT immoral for boys to be like girls in SOME ways, as long as they are not TOO MUCH LIKE GIRLS. Again, having not read ALL of this book, I will NOT say that he is ENTIRELY right or wrong.
There are two areas where clearly do NOT totally agree with him.
One is about institutional rites of passage. He is partly right in saying that every boy needs to go through such rites oto have positive view of society; so does every girl. SOME rites that he mentioned-- bar mitvah and high school graduation ARE up-
building, He also mentioned fraternity hazing; I DO believe that SOME initiation rites ARE beneficial; "hazing" applies to DESTRUCTIVE rites-- blanket parties, paddling, mandatory nude cameraderie. (I can add confirmation for Gentile youth and passing driuver's test as BENEFICIAL rites of passage, which hazing-- meaning DESTRUCTIVE rites, as opposed to CONSTRUCTIVE ones like HelP Week, that is WORK week-- is NOT.)
The other thing on which I do NOT agree with Michael Gurian is his assertion that soanking should NOT be last resort (or saved for conduct like bullying, stealing, playing with matches, etc.)
but something EVERY boy needs REGULARLY (to get full attention).
I FIRMLY disagree as it is NOT ETHICAL to give one a hurt who did NOT hurt someone else FIRST. Corporal punishment is designed to HARD-BOIL people; only EGGS should be hard-boiled-- NOT PEOPLE!
Again, I agree with SOME of what Michael Gurian says, based on parts of his book that I DID read, but not everything.

Rating:
Summary: A Counselor's Must Have (not to mention a parent's)
Review: I found this book interesting until I reached the second chapter and at that point I could go no further. He admits that evidence about the effects of day care are divided and then turns around to say it is just fine. Not only that, but day care is just like an extended second family which is just what boys need. Please! The final straw came when he basically said that the nuclear family of dad, mom, and kids was no longer possible in America, to just get over it, and move on. He admits that boys being raised by single mothers is the worst possible situation and greatly increases the boys chances for all kinds of problems, so why isn't he admitting that the need to get back to solid intact families is the most important thing we can do for all children in this country? Instead he emphasizes creating this large extended network of three families which is 1st the home family of which any make-up of people is fine, 2nd other relatives and minimum wage paid day care workers, and 3rd the whole community in general. After reading this politically correct 'tell parents what they want to hear' garbage, I knew I couldn't trust another thing he might say.