Like a week ago some other library returned this book that they'd borrowed. We have a copy of it, and not too many libraries do, so apparently people request it pretty regularly. One of my coworkers took a look at it and all of us read it, shocked. It's a kids book that would never, never, never get published these days. I love gender roles. I really do. But I just know that this would be like, a lawsuit on every page.
It is very much out of print, but if you want your own copy, you can purchase a used copy on Amazon for $300. It's kind of funny because half of the reviews there like "THIS DESERVES ZERO STARS!!!! WORST BOOK EVER!!!!" and half are like "5 stars. We've come so far..."
Anyhow, I'm posting the whole thing. Fair use? And maybe it's like money where you can reproduce it as long as it isn't the right size? Otherwise, you would just be in suspense forever, because you'd never know how it ended.
UPDATE 5/12/09:
- Apparently this book was actually published as satire. A few people have mentioned this in the comments. It was published in 1970, which is late for this stuff, so that makes sense. I guess what happened is, Darrow published this as a joke and reviewers took it seriously. His obituary is here. It sounds like he was a pretty funny guy.
- A couple people leaving comments have been rude to me for not knowing that it was satire when I posted this. This is my personal blog, guys. I thought it was neat, so I posted it for my friends. I didn't expect hundreds of thousands of people to be reading my blog. Similarly: when I said it would be a lawsuit on every page, I was exaggerating. I do that sometimes. No more comments about that, please.
- If you wish to comment, please note: my mom reads my blog. I welcome your comments and discussion about this post and book (whether or not I agree with you!) but I like to keep my blog family-friendly. Please be respectful towards each other. I will delete even clever comments if they contain profanity or are vulgar. This was not initially a problem, but over the past few days it has become an issue. Thanks.
Posts
375 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 375 of 375That was cute. I have no problem with gender roles, just as long as they are able to be broken. I certainly don't cook, but I love to eat. My husband does all the cooking!
What a cute book! I think it's charming.
You know, either we had that book at home or my doctor had it in his office - I definitely read it as a kid... less than 25 years ago.
I just stumbled upon this. The illustrations are cute :) and it's nice to see that we have progressed this far.
To J. Bellerand's "Last I checked motherhood is VERY important and MOST women would love to be a bride one day." -- Yes, but last time I checked fatherhood was as important as motherhood, and there must be as many guys want to be a groom as girls who want to be a bride since marriage still needs the consent of both parties, you know :) And the outrage expressed was not over the father/mother, groom/bride pairs. It was mostly at the doctor/nurse pair and others like that.
I find the "boys can eat" part funny. It's actually not sexist if you think of it; it would make boys dependable on girls. Kind of a "girl power!!!" :)
To Frob's "it totally supports the Bible's position on these matters and the Bible is the ultimate authority on truth." -- Please show me the Bible verse that says only men can be pilots. Thanks.
To White Ribbon's "Flying isn't natural. Driving isn't natural. Practically everything we do in our daily lives is a "fight against nature." The only natural things humans still do are eating and having sex." -- This was excellent!
Belle le foto...peccato che nn corrispondano alla realtà ..
"it totally supports the Bible's position on these matters and the Bible is the ultimate authority on truth."
My gosh, that's amusingly pathetic if he's serious. And to the idiot anon: this book doesn't piss off liberals, it pisses off, what's the word, oh yes NORMAL people. Don't even try that crap.
A friend shared this with me today and I loved it, not for the sexist content, but as a retrospective of the old ways that still have a ways to go in some cases, though a lot of it is just more subtle these days.
Thanks for posting this! I read almost every comment preceding this one, keeping an open mind..
This is not the place for me to argue my point of view, so I will say nothing more.
With the exception of: thanks again.
I think the funniest part of the whole thing is that everyone is so busy being in a whiny PC tizzy that they ignore the real message of the book. The final message essentially says, "we recognize and like that we are different and we need each other."
That is a much better message than a lot of kids books. Also, it is true. We are all different, some of the differences are inherent to our sex, race, etc. some are not. But, to lead a good life we need each other.
Response to comments below saying that this isn't that offensive because most people comply with the gender roles: whether that's true or not is not the point. Books like this indoctrinate/indoctrinated girls and boys to feel that they HAD to comply with these gender roles - or face social and other consequences. That's what makes this book so scary. Boys and girls weren't told they could be or do whatever they wanted - and that's WHY they complied. When they saw books like this that said boys do this and girls do that, it made them never consider that maybe a girl could fix things, or that a boy could be a nurse. If they believe they can do anything, they will do whatever makes them happiest. If they believe they have to comply with culturally defined gender roles, then they do what society tells them is right - instead of what fulfills them as individuals.
funny - but girls are more graceful
heh, I just finished making a costume for my son for a Fairy Festival tomorrow.
I have never tried to push my son toward or away from something just because he happens to pee standing up. I remember my mom taking away my comic books and baseball cards when I was nine. I wasn't girlie enough for her. I couldn't do something like that to my kid.
just in case you were one of the people deluding yourself, it is social conditioning (like this) that indoctrinates different genders which creates to this day gender inequality. Can you imagine telling young girls that they should be proud about being biologically predisposed to keeping house and cooking? That only men are doctors? What fucking garbage.
I'm glad I was born fifteen years ago.
Kike Zionists perpetrated 9-11.
Wow - so glad that times have changed, especially for my daughter!!! Of course, we have some ignorant people who want to take us back to those times.....
love it!, very curious too
its obviously sexist but very of swett and positive about it
it is for other times and other people, people who hate it foget that every book must be readed acording to its time and history
if you use modern thinking to interpretate every book you will miss the point - the bible will be sexist too, and won't be published today
Finally, we're teaching kids some common sense. If only they had read us this book when I was growing up. By the way, all of you failed to mention that this book was written by a woman.(Yes, the author is female).
Ever since this book was written, we've stopped teaching girls common sense.
I have trucks and I have dolls.
I am strong and I am graceful.
I am handsome and I am beautiful.
I fix some things but I need some things fixed by others.
I can eat and I can cook.
I can invent things and I can use things others invent.
I can build houses and I can keep house.
I don't want to be a bride or a mother.
And I may *want* you, but I sure as hell don't *need* you.
It's amazing how some people in the comments could just drag the significance of this little book down to, "Well, it's not saying that men or women are better than one or the other, so it's not sexist." I remember being in a nursery school trying to drill it into two little boys' heads that women could be police officers, too. (I remember there was a plastic doll of a female police officer and one of the boys was insisting it was actually "a boy") Based on all the books they'd read and the cartoons they'd watched, the existence of female police doll was just impossible, and they just looked at me with round, perplexed eyes.
No wonder I'm so hungry, I'm a girl so I can only cook. I can't eat! Darn! I am actually twitching to think that this book ever existed.
Best part is the last page.
We need each other.
We do.
Aw, it'd be a sweet little tome if it wasn't so mind-poppingly crazy. I like it, though it makes me raise my eyebrows and go 'ouch' every few pages.
Finally, they've got it right. Such a relief! <--not serious <---even less serious <--just goofing around
This should be an obvious satire, even to those who don't know anything about the author.
I'm getting a real kick out of these smug yet idiotic comments from outraged wannabe intellectuals. Real feminists are smart enough to see this for what it is - the rest of you are just insecure idiots looking for validation.
Anon, sweetie, this book was published in 1970-right around the time feminism was gaining power and the older farts were rebelling against it. I'd say there's at least a 55% chance it's totally serious. The author of this blog seems to think so, and while she may not be a feminist, she certainly doesn't sound like an intellectual wannabe. Perhaps you should take your overly tight sphincter elsewhere.
Can I just say I use boys to fix things... It not that I couldn't, I just like to use my resources
"I'm a boy!" "I'm a girl!" "Boys have boy parts!" "Girls have girl parts!" This is pretty much what my daughter's been learning. ^.^
For anyone who sees the majority of these differences to be true to real life (like that most girls want to be mothers and brides): Perhaps these stereotypes fit the women that you know. If you fit most of the boy stereotypes you're probably more likely to know women who also fit the stereotype. But there are a lot of other folks out there who don't fit into either type, or know other people who don't fit into either type. Furthermore, if you believe in these stereotypes, then when you see an individual person you are inclined to determine their male or femaleness and in doing so project your expectations onto them. You can't understand why people are offended by this because you aren't, but if you took the time to listen to what the offended people are telling you, you might be able to understand what the fuss is about. Whether or not these particular definitions of boys and girls still exist, the point is that gender boundaries do exist, and they are limiting. For example, there are many "boys" who would love to be "brides" but our culture does not permit it. I'm what you would call a girl who will never be a bride because my personal preference would never allow it.
Is there such a thing as "real feminists"? Because if there are, and they teach other people about feminism by aggressively trying to outsmart or degrade them instead of welcoming them into a safe, constructive conversation, I'm going to have to stop calling myself a feminist. Do you know something about the author's intention that we don't? Would you please share it becuase I am interested...
The book is funny of course, but not as funny as reading through these comments.
If women didn't start working, there would be far less if any people unemployed.Y'know, either that statement is self-contradictory, or you don't define women as "people."
for those of you who are 'for' gender defined roles, and used examples within the animal kingdom - be mindful that animals also take part in cannibalism, incest, murder and pooping in public!
It should also be remembered that this book was written in 1970 - after at least a decade of young people, old people, women, and men shaking up, bending, smashing and mocking 1950s domesticity, and all these silly old stereotypes that go with it.
We are being too generous to "I'm Glad I'm a Boy!" if we read it as a quaint relic from bygone days. This was clearly written as reaction - reaction to a world that was changing rapidly in directions that the authors and publishers were not comfortable with.
Great book for these - including me - who still believe that it is good to do dirty/heavy things for ladies. We are different and by helping each other we make this world a good place to live. Threating book for these who love to live in an uniformed world where fixing difference is more important than fixing problems using these differences in skills.
Things that make you go hmmmmm, alright.
I'm saddened by the comments left by many people, obviously women, on this page. This book is not evil or stupid. Clearly, some of the assertions are true. Boys generally are stronger than girls. Fine. But when you start promoting difference in every area of life, that's where things start to get restrictive. Do these Post-ers understand what it must have been like to be a woman with a talent that was never recognised, never nurtured, never drawn out - even suppressed - just because of her gender? The point is, these stereotypes, introduced at such an early age (the ones about professions are the ones I'm referring to in particular) were intended to develop kids ideas about the world. For anyone who says the statements are fine because they only say what can be done, and not what can't, they are missing the point. Each illustration is presented as a statement of fact. The book is a pedagological tool for kids in the classroom. Ergo, kids were taught using this book, as if it contained facts, universal truths about the world. They were taught that this was what life would like for all of them when they grew up. Period. You could argue that they were just simply being taught how things would likely turn out, and that their choices would thereafter not be circumscribed. But, as we know from history, this was not true. In Ireland, until the 1970's, female civil servants had to retire when they got married. Now, I know there are those of you out there fiercly protective of your choice to be homemakers, but the above requirement did not come from necessity (ie having to mind the kids) but from arbritrary gender stereotyping, straight from the pages of the book we're discussing. Mothers, come on, this is not a liberal whine, this is important! You know how impressionable your kids are! The rule I just mentioned was based on the simple logic displayed in the book - ie, when girls and boys are married, the law of opposites dictate that if one is working, the other must be making the dinners. This was the reality for many women until recently. I would congratulate my daughters if they wanted to stay at home, but I would never want them to feel that the role of homemaker was their universal destiny, and all other ambitions were hopeless. Those who have commented saying the book is harmless are speaking from the complacency of a society that gives them a choice to do so. In some societies, even now, these women wouldn't even be allowed to use the internet, let alone give their opinion online. Do these women realise how dangerous their opinions were in the past, and still are in some parts of the world? It is sad but true that most women the world over still have to see their talents quenched and their personalities squeezed into shapes that don't fit, sometimes in violent ways, because of books that teach 'facts' like this. I'm not trying to be a kill-joy, but this is the reality.
I'm a girl, and I can't eat lest I weigh a healthy weight and men will think I'm too fat to get married to because I don't measure up to the unrealistic standard of beauty of the photoshopped girl in the magazines.
The old gender roles were bad and we have come a long way, unfortunately there's still a long road ahead of us too :P
At first glance the book is a bit dated and, at best, quaint. However if you think about it a lot of the stuff in there is still often true. For example, I can't think of the last time I saw a woman pilot and I fly quite a bit. I'm not saying those things *should* be true, I'm just pointing out that our society has not progressed as much as we might like to think. Anyhow, at least one thing is still a nice message in the book: the conclusion at the end that we need each other and the implication that the sexes should work together.
For Pete's sake, how many people are going to say "You guys are idiots, it's true?"
Look, some of those stereotypes may still be inspired today, but the point stands that using sexist literature as a learning tool for youth will make those that want to live outside of the gender roles presented in this book miserable, scared, and if everyone else read this book, discouraged.
So give it a rest, I don't care about your oh-so-astute observation that many people still adhere to these roles. WE KNOW AND IT DOESN'T PROVE ANYTHING.
Just that we've got a ways to go.
I like it.
It's a book.
I have three daughters.
Women in the UK have a choice home or career.
I hope my daughters choose career in their twenties and home in their thirties.
I have no problem with this book.
A great one for my son. Gender correctness is creating a generation of timid men.
www.DeathToGlamour.com
"My ex-wife would be appalled at this book. We spent our marriage fighting over who would be the 'dad' in the house.
Instead of focusing on the truest line: 'We need each other'.
My current GF and I more closely follow a 'traditional' model.
Way more harmony.
When it comes to lifestyles, there is no 'one size fits all'. The great news is that we can choose.
It may be hard to understand, but for some people, taking gender roles works best."
This makes me want to puke.
Are you trying to tell me if I fix a hole in your sock or the leaky toilet. I am a man? Because last time I checked I have a vagina.
Boys do eat. But how many chicks suck at cooking and their boyfriend kicks ass on the grill.
I could go on.
There was a reason for women to stay home, and yes, it was nature at work.
I guess simple terms would be the best:
Man goes out to kill something and drag it home. Usually a dangerous endeavor.
Woman stays home in general safety, raising and protecting her offspring.
Offspring survives because man and woman worked together.
Offspring grows up well-adjusted because woman was there to instill values.
The human species survives and thrives.
Now that neither man nor woman are home because they're both out busy being "equal" because it's fair, who is at home raising the offspring?
...and we wonder why our children turn out the way they do nowadays..
Oh, and it's only indoctrination if you're not there with your children while they're learning. Television and books should never be babysitters, and babysitters should never be your childs raiser.
Just my two cents
Could be worse. He's pushing the stroller and she at least has a job. It really could be worse. Then again...it could be better.
Wow! Oh goodness, goodness. This is such a good primer for people who don't believe in the theories of gender studies!
I find it funny that everyone is up in arms about this. At the time that this was written, it was probably actually somewhat progressive. Certainly, a few years earlier, it would have been seen as reasonably progressive.
I'm female, and I don't find this offensive at all, in all honesty. I find it an interesting view of what society believed a couple decades ago. I also agree with some of the other commenters that, in broad generalizations, this has always been true.
I do know what it's like to be a female in a male-dominated role. I write software for a living currently. Most of my coworkers are male, and I've definitely seen situations where somebody made an assumption about my skills based on the fact that I'm female. Those assumptions never made me upset because they were honestly reasonable given the general view of what they'd seen. It just gave me an opportunity to surprise people and show that I knew more than they expected.
I think it is up to the parents to educate their kids about gender roles; not books, however offensive they may be to you.
People should try to expand their views before skipping into conclusions.
Despite everyone's total belief in the sincerity of this thing, I'm pretty confident that this was meant to stir things up when it was written. The illustrator, Whitney Darrow, did a number of other biting satires with the same little girl and little boy figures. I happen to own one of them - A Child's Guide to Freud. While I'm sure there WERE plenty of people in the 60's who wouldn't have read this as satire (as, frighteningly, many commenters here don't), there were also plenty who would have.
This is less for the other commenters and more for the blogger. I have a feeling you won't believe me until you read A Child's Guide to Freud, but you should. Sadly, the fact that this can't be recognized as satire tells how far we HAVEN'T come.
Wow. Legendary.
At least one of those is factual; girls can't be cub scouts and boys can't be girl scouts.
An outrage! I'm a man, and I can cook better than my wife! And why are you assuming I can't clean a house, just because I'm a man? Pure discrimination!
PS: Great post, loved it :-) I'm a firm believer that everybody should have equal rights, that there should never be discrimination based on gender, and that you should not *teach* gender roles like this to kids. However, as another poster mentioned, these are extremes that genders in reality often tend to (by nature), and as an adult, is quite enjoyable to read about.
I'm 51, and I remember this book from when I was a child. I think my family owned a copy. I've got daughters in their early 20s and I'm glad that there's so much less sexism now.
I for one am glad my mom was a housekeeper by choice and dad a hard working man... the main problem I have is the PC folks tend to have a VERY closed mind about "old Fashion" ways and the people that think this way while the non-PC folks are berated for not having an open mind... maybe that's why we don't have an open mind about it. It is crammed down our throats and told to like it.
I'm buying this book and adding it to my children's library... it'll be a daily read for me and my house. :)
What is the problem? It is a book from the 1970, there is no need to bash it today. Don't feel attacked by it, but see it as a testament to the old views of how society once (often in reality) worked.
You don't say that an encyclopedia from the 1950's is a bad book, because the moonlanding wasn't yet in it. You call it OUTDATED, NOT EVIL. Views and society change.
I believe it applies extremely well to modern times
I work in a university community and essentially every young woman student or academic that I know well enough to talk about such things, says secretly I would be love to stay at home and have babies and do the reading and art and culture that I like, but I feel if I did I would be betraying womankind by following a stereotype, and people would mock me. Essentially every young working mother I know says her kids are fried all the time from daycare, etc., and she has no relationship to speak of with them after they go off to school.
How can we say this is a healthy society?
As I was saying, it is outdated, and I'm very disappointed in some of the commenters. It's like the people who feel attacked or say it's evil can't think rationally or place into context.
I'm going to give a daring example, so please, It's not my meaning to offend anyone by this.
Uncle Tom's cabin, today the actions and lifestyle described in this book are no longer accurate. We are not going to say that this old book is evil or an outrage because it speaks about racial inequality and ruthless white slaveowners which was back then reality.
This is great. It would be the core of a very good lesson for young children. A bit of history, and a subject to discuss how things have changed.
Is there a companion book about when the coloreds knew their place?
Oh for God's sake, Anon; that comparison is pitiful. Uncle Tom's Cabin is not offensive because it speaks AGAINST the prejudices it shows; this book doesn't. This book, rather than Uncle Tom, resembles a book with little black children and white children, saying, "black people work; white people pay. Black people follow; white people lead." If such a book ever existed, it wouldn't any more. Yet people like you make excuses for books like this. I really wasn't that pissed about this book, until you made that cockamamie comparison. I am SICK of people allowing sexism while bashing racism.
this one just proves my point about not being able to rationalize or think straight.
btw, I mentioned it was a daring comparison, and no insults intended.
and the comment about the "is there companion book isn't mine".
I know very well that uncle tom isn't offensive and it is against the racial inequality. However, the children's book from the 1970's didn't even try to fight something or promote sexism. It just shows how people thought in your parent's time, just like uncle tom shows how it was in it's time (with a noble intent).
Sweetie, I'm quite able to rationalize and think straight. That's why I see the difference between MOTIVES in each book. That's something every reader has to learn, preferably by the age of eighteen.
I too know to recognize motives in a book.
And I believe this children's book merely shows children the view on society as it was when it was published, and not an evil conspiracy to indoctrinate and promote sexism.
But according to the same logic that dictates this book is evil, is every book that shows an old lifestyle (with or without underlying motive) evil.
My last comment, I agree with you that people have to learn how te read, read motives, read between the lines, and that it has to be done when young.
However, and this is something i see a lot of people forget, It is also important to place things in THE PROPER CONTEXT AND TIMEFRAME.
Thanks for confirming your meaning, Anon.
I guess I'm just fed up with the few people here who seem to lap up this book, including the first person who told me about it: a black girl who thinks she's a Victorian and thought this book was just darling. If it WAS about "color roles" instead of gender roles, everyone-the OP and dark girl included-would be up in arms and not a soul would be cheerfully reminiscing about ye old charming South and the days of Bubba, Mami, etc.
The book is from 1970? Add 30,40 years to that, and realise it was intended for toddlers ...
We're talking about the first generation of people that could free and easily talk about their sexuality then.
So maybe the ideas in the book didn't have such an influence after all?
Wondeful! Thank you.
Of course, lots and lots of books have polarized reviews on Amazon. See this graph - and don't miss the comments.
celebrate diversity
The book is sad, sort of funny in a "not really all that funny" way that Tanya pointed out.
But the comments, they are the pits. Reading people that say that gender roles are "real" and that the book is "true" and that they "embrace" differences - and even quote poor Baron Cohen on it! And not in 1950s, but in 2010 America. That gave me a chill that I find it very hard to overcome.
this is priceless. oh how far we have come.
I kinda liked it. Women and Men are NOT equal. They will never be equal, and that is a GOOD THING. Sound Sexist? It IS! I'd argue that we NEED some sexism. Some discrimination is GOOD! Look up "sexist" and "discriminiate" in the dictionary, then think about it!
You NEED to be able to distinguish and determine! However, when you're discriminating, DO NOT FORCE OR MISTREAT ANYONE! We have gender roles for a reason. Most of what has come of them is good. If we screw with what has been working for the past however many thousands of years, we are shooting ourselves in the proverbial foot.
See what I mean? An idiot. You know hon, racial "roles" worked for a long time too; how dumb to mess with them! And seriously: the idiot idea that we can't "distinguish" without them? If you can't tell the difference between men and women without a can-do list for each, you're a simpleton beyond belief.
i am glad i am a girl.
this is sexist . it says "Boys can fix things" "girls need things fixed" woman are quite capable of fixing things and being a docter theres lots of woman doctors,policemen and builders we can be strong too and im pretty sure we can eat aswell lol . and boys can be gracefull and doctors and work around the house and have stuff fixd for them too if they want . i think woman and men are equal in every way and can do anything exactly the same but its just men choose to do some of those jobs more than woman. and i dont see why men were meant to be the main gender the strong one the best back then why couldnt it have been girls whats so different except our physical appearence we are the ones who really created every human we had to give birth to them and feed them so i have never understood but the ending is true x
The only thing I don't like about it is that it says 'boys are' or 'girls are' something. If a child read that it would teach them defined gender roles and would possibly keep a girl from wanting to become a pilot or a boy from becoming a nurse or cheerleader. that's not okay with me because I want my children to know they can become whatever they want!
cute? really? cute? wow... anyhows. i thought it was funny, in an "i can't believe how absurd this is" sort of way. i would never read a book like this to any actual children. it's a bit gross.
I don't think the author was trying to offend anyone when he wrote this.
He was stating what he saw to be true in his time. Times have changed
so have roles, so of course no one would write this now unless it was a joke. Kids don't work in factories in the US anymore, we don't own people as slaves... but other literature shows these things during those time periods. Instead of being upset, just thank God that you're free to be a nurse or doctor no matter what your gender.
You are all missing the real problem with this book.
When it says that girls have dolls, the picture is of a girl with two dolls that look incredibly similar to her. That doll looks like her daughter on mere inspection.
BUT...
When it says that girls are mothers, the doll she is holding does not look like her daughter. If it is, then the father is at least several populations away from the mother in some long ring species to which they both belong.
So, the book is promoting the interbreeding of populations in ring species.
It is trying to teach children that it is okay for black people to mate with white people.
The gender role subject is a red herring.
Discuss.
Oh geez, not one of those morons who makes a dumbass comment and then leaves with the word "discuss", revealing his plainer than life agenda. Get a life, prick.
I'm late to the party but still...
I read through the comments and then gave a long thought to the whole book. I'd say that the main issue, from my today's viewpoint is that it mixes the idea of complementarity with something I'd see as sarcasm.
Complementarity (with generalizations I find totally permissible) would be Girls are brides/mothers, boys are grooms/fathers or boys are strong/girls are graceful (alright, less stable field, I know, being an example of a girl, or at least I was one the last time I went to the bathroom, who is tall, big and strong and a ballet dancer but hey).
Then, there's the borderline stuff that reflects rather the 40 years old ideas: boys are pilots, policemen, doctors/girls are stewardesses/metermaids/nurses. Maybe it would go to the first group those 40 years ago.
And then there's sarcasm. Girls can cook, boys can eat. Girls break things, boys fix them. Make a bunch of such in the same vein and I'll be dead laughing. But, sorry, I don't need a boy to eat what I've cooked, I don't need a boy to fix what I've broken and similarly, I guess most boys wouldn't want me so that I would break things and make them busy.
Putting the sarcastic along to the complementary creates an explosive mix.
wtf IT'S A BOOK DAMMIT!!!
IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT DON'T READ IT.
Take the knot out of your panties and just get over it.
OH.MY.GOD.
That cheerleader illustration takes the biscuit.
WOOO!
I remember reading a similar sort of book as a child (yes I'm that old) and it seemed normal then. Thanks for posting the whole book!
Why can't life still be like this?
"Boys can eat"
"Girls can cook"
*scratches head*
My marriage is fucked. Apparently, my husband is a girl.
This book makes boys throw up! This book makes girls vomit!
. . . I see no problems with this book.
This will probably get lost in the sea of comments, but I think it should be noted that "I'm Glad I'm a Boy! I'm Glad I'm a Girl!" was published in 1970 - and that means it was a backlash against the rising tide of feminism...
With that lens, it feels reductive and desperate. Women WERE doctors (Elizabeth Blackwell became a doctor in 1849) This book stands in sharp contrast to 1980's "The Paper Bag Princess" which was published ten years later, and embodies a new type of feminist myth. Thanks for sharing this. It's scary how so many of these "myths" seem hard-wired into our cultural beliefs of what is possible - and yet when you see them on the page their ridiculousness jumps right out at you.
Namaste,
Lee
I vaguely recall seeing that in the library when I was a gradeschooler. Horrifying to me now, the single woman who is a gun-toting cop, has renovated her house by herself and is quite capable with power tools!
I'm glad it's not 1970!
its a funny book chill the fuck out it says at the end we need each other which means we are all important, jesus you guys are ridiculous
Something far more revealing to me than the outdated relic that is that book, are the responses here.
My God, people are much more sexist than I ever expected. There really are conservatives out there who want to shunt women back into the kitchen. I never quite bought that assertion before now.
Whitney Darrow, the author of the book, was a *SATIRIST* for the New Yorker, indicating that the book was most likely SATIRE and a critique of sexism. He also wrote the 'Children's Guide to Freud' - an indication of why one might not take his books at face value. I'm surprised you couldn't manage a Google search before posting this.
Apparently the arthur was a satirist for the New Yorker. Sorry guys, this was meant to be a work of satire, not serious. I was fooled as well until a friend pointed that out to me.
dammit he beat me to it. Screw you, Mutino!
The above cartoon depictions have no connection with misogyny at all, certainly they do represent benevolent sexism which in certain cases can lead to forms of hostile sexism.
They are stereotypical gender roles that are quite antiquated today. For example there are now many male nurses and female doctors, etc.
Misogyny is a behavioural manifestation of a psychosexual disorder.Misogyny is considered by psychologist as a result of a childhood environment where the male child is subject to physical abuse,extreme neglect,or psychosexual abuse by a women.
The male child might have suffered emotional,sexual,or psychological and physical abuse at the hands of a woman that results in a intense hatred for women.
Whatever the causation, misogyny is a psychosexual disorder and is an intense hatred for women.Gender roles are a set of behavioral norms assigned to males and females, although stereotypical they are not based on hatred of any gender.
Some women are horrible Mothers, some men are excellent cooks, existentialism means to me to create your own reality, the cartoon depictions have no real meaning in todays World.
Oh. My. God.
Haha. I shouldn't laugh, but it's so outdated. It made me laugh :L
Damn! So that's my problem - my parents never showed me this book when I was a kid.
"benevolent sexism"? That's an oxymoron and a half.
A question for those of you who fly more often than I do (for work, for example). How many times have you encountered a female pilot? I'm just asking because I've flown probably between 50 and 100 times and am yet to come across one.
Benevolent sexism is a sociological fact, e.g. opening the door for a women, loading women first into life boats while a ship is sinking,etc. The outward appearances might give the impression that benevolent sexism protects or assist the woman involved when in fact it might convey the message that they are in fact the weaker sex.
1. Benevolent sexism
2. Hostile sexism
I'm too lazy to read all the comments haha.
What I want to say is that even if this book is not a satire, the historical moment that was published justifies everything we see on it.
Whether we like it or not.
Stop tearing your clother out for something that is part of the past.
I like the book, represents a moment in our history and and reminds us how much we have "evolved".
If someone isn't sure what kind of lawsuit this might raise, just read through the comments.
Wow... That was not sexist! :) Funny!!!! I laughed - a lot. This is weird, I am currently listening to Big Girls Don't Cry by Fergie. Bizarre...
If this was published in 1970, it was not intended to be satire. That was way, WAY before political correct thought made it practically a crime to say half the things in the book. With nearly 40 years of societal development, and amazing advances by women in that time, we recognize a lot of the comparisons to be utterly ridiculous and sexist, but in 1970, nobody would have given them a second thought. I suspect anyone who thinks this was satire was not actually alive in 1970.
A lot of things have changed before this book was published. A lot of things have changed since. If we don't know the history of where we have come from we are bound to repeat it. Humans can regress as well as move forward. Yeah I'm an old fart.
Truth on every page, that's how it should be.
I wish that my girlfriend kept the house clean. But she does not even know how to switch on the vacuum cleaner. She tried it twice some time ago but left it as impossible :-(
The most amazing drawing to me is "Girls are stewardesses." A skirt so short that the little girl's panties are showing!
I can't believe people didn't realize this was a satirical book! It's poking fun at traditional gender roles. Calm down, people, it's a joke. I love it.
what about Catherine Littlefeild Greene? What about my Aunt who can't cook? What about my all girls woodshop class? What about the male nusres? The female doctors? Why don't we have a female president? What about the WMBA? male stewards? male chefs?
Why is it socially frowned upon for little girls to be smart? Why does the media push girls to be unheathily thin? Why does my father think I shouldn't go into the miltary because it's "not a good feild for women"? Why do boys in my class admently exclaim that they men are better than women, and "who cares about them anyway?" Why are men pressured to be "masculine," and if they don't support the group in degrading women, they are frowned upon? Why do men still make more money in equal jobs? Why is a man who cooks degraded? Why if a man and a woman show the same initiative, is the man called "ambitious" while the woman is "selfish?" Why do we still have double standards?
It's scary to think that we are doing better not putting women or men into a box, restricting them with stereo types, but we're still not there yet.
Yes, we still have certain roles in society based on gender, but the stereotypes and preconcieved notions should not factor into how people decide to live life.
I can be a woman docotor who fixes what needs to be fixed, eats without worry of being fat, mothers children eventually, and be strong.
(oh, and sorry for the length, but one more thing--notice the pictures, the girl (in 12 pictures) is wearing a short skirt(in some, you can even see her underwear). In most of the photos, the girl is being passive, or working hard for someone else. Just think about it...)
Bump for great Justice
Thanks God the society has evolutioned...this is sexist...
I find the last comment by Anonymous extremely ironic.
it would be perfect if "boys are heroes" was followed with "girls need rescuing."
hahaha so very funny, id heard about the book so it's great to finally read it in full. Before I was confused about my role in society, now everything is clear.
I'm glad we are in 2009 and things have changed!
I'm a girl, and I wouldn't go far as to say I was a tomboy, but I did (and still do) lots of boy things.
I made mudpies, played with my brother's Jurasic Park action figures more than he did, loved sports (especially the violent ones like football and hockey), and climbed trees.
On a camping trip, I can pitch a tent, build a fire, make hot dogs, and pop open the first round of beers for everyone faster and more efficiently than it takes most men to ask for directions.
I would rather go see a bad action movie than a romantic comedy. I can drink half my men-friends under the table and still walk to the next bar. I am competant with electronics and powertools. I can build furniture. I am more knowledgable about sports than most of my male friends. And I play video games, too.
I don't understand fashion, celebrity, or why girls obsess over their hair.
But I can also cook, clean, and look damn good in a dress (if I do say so myself).
I feel like I have the best of both worlds. I have the outward appearance of a woman and the general interests of a boy.
I tend to date men who will put on a nice pair of pants and suit jacket and go to the symphony on Saturday and chill around the house or go to the bar and watch football on Sunday.
My last serious boyfriend cooked because I was just learning when we got together, and I did the laundry. We were true equals in every possible way you can imagine (and a few you probably don't want to) and we both found it very liberating. We took care of each other.
When I get married someday, I will require my partner to be like that.
hey!! Cheers from Spain. loved this post, loved the joke and think all above comments against it just didn't get the whole thing.
Congrats 4 the blog, dude. It rocks!
So many people miss the point.
Nice post, cool book. Sorry the Feminazi's are too busy seig-heil'ing all over your blahg at each other about how outraged they are at this harmless piece of book.
As has been pointed out, the real lesson is at the end of the book.
though slightly sexist at first...(i was ready to cry murder!), that was the most heartwarming thing i have read in quite a while!
I had this book when I was younger! I don't think I have it anymore sadly.
I'm re-posting. Nice find!
ounpaI am a 90 year old female, author, storyteller, with many years of library experience. This little book represents our viewpoint as a culture at the time it was published, and while these fields are now interchangeable as to male/female career paths, it is no longer applicable to our American scene, however, I see nothing objectionable in the content as to good taste in presentation. There is no lack of respect shown for either male or female role as portrayed here. I think it is interesting for discussion of how we have changed, but there is nothing here to cause anyone to sue anyone.
I don't know what is creepier... the book or the people who agree with its contents.
I wish people weren't so sensitive. It's just a funny little book.
Yes, and a satire at that. I can't believe people are so worked up over this. Has no one ever seen National Lampoon or The Onion?
I know this topic is propbably dead and buried, but... do we know for certain that the book is satyrical. I have my doubts. Darrow was a satirist but his politics wasn't inconsistent with the philosophy espoused by the book.
The book is satire. The guy had an odd sense of humour. And, For whomever said a female wrote this book, It was a male who wrote it.
The sarcasm is what makes it funny here.
Thank you for posting this (all of this). As a sociologist, I think it's wonderful when people find these types of things and actually share them. There's nothing like a spirited debate about how much has or has not changed, along with exactly where we draw the line with satire. :-)
Is anyone else receiving new comment notification in spite of having unsubscribed from them? I try to unsubscribe again, it says "you are already unsubscribed". Yet these notifications continue to arrive. :/
Thanks for posting these images. It's not satire, by the way. He was a satirist for the New Yorker, but he also did non-satirical children's book illustrations. If it were satire, all of these pages would be funny and biting, rather than the continuum that is there ranging from what we accept currently (Cub Scouts/Brownies; Grooms/Brides; heroes/heroines) to what is now patently ridiculous (doctors/nurses; boys build houses/girls keep houses). All of these stereotypes mean well. Some of them are endearing, some destructive rationalizations for prejudicial attitudes. Nice post, though.
Thanks for posting these images. It's not satire, by the way. He was a satirist for the New Yorker, but he also did non-satirical children's book illustrations. If it were satire, all of these pages would be funny and biting, rather than the continuum that is there ranging from what we accept currently (Cub Scouts/Brownies; Grooms/Brides; heroes/heroines) to what is now patently ridiculous (doctors/nurses; boys build houses/girls keep houses). All of these stereotypes mean well. Some of them are endearing, some destructive rationalizations for prejudicial attitudes. Nice post, though.
thanks for the post. despite the outmoded limits the book prescribes it is a fantastic book! i'm one who feels pretty confident that if you were to be so lucky as to have a copy of this book it could be used as a valuable tool for teaching our children about gender equality. after all, any good parent would use it as a springboard to talk about gender roles and stereotypes.
on another note, it made me think of this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3moN2kKy09A which is also out of print and quite expensive when you do find a copy. i'm sure the treatment of the elephant would raise the hackles of PETA and greenpeace the world over. humans are so funny when they get offended!
uhh That's very cute... i like this book its really nice... and your work its excellent... thanks for sharing this
simply awesome. i really love it.
Boys can cuss and swear and carry on.
Girls can delete comments.
Awesome find.
Wahaha! This was hysterical! Boys build houses/Girls clean them. Priceless.
I'm certainly glad that we now live in a world where girls can build houses & boys can clean them. :)
What I find most unsettling about this is that though so many of us may find this offensive (or at least somewhat disturbing), things aren't so drastically different from this for the vast majority of people (e.g., boys are still presidents and girls are still first ladies).
I stumbled on this, thats probably why so many people are reading this.
came to look at this post from sociological images. i find it sad how many of the stereotypes it talks about are still forced upon us. but at the same time i find it slightly less insulting to have the girls are heroines part. I'm glad i was born in the late 80's instead of sooner. that's all i will say since it's rather shocking every time i see posts about this book.
I know that I'm two years too late, but I just found this, and I have to step in and correct the record. Thanks so much for posting these pages. I'll use them in my women's history and visual culture classes.
I wanted to expand on some of the hunches that have been expressed in these comments with the perspective of a professional historian.
As a women's historian, I see absolutely no evidence that this charming little book is satire. If Darrow's satirical style in his New Yorker cartoons had involved social commentary and a critique of American narrow-mindedness, then it might make sense that this book was meant as satire. But as described in his New York Time obituary, Darrow's humor, satirical as it might have been, seems to have had nothing to do with social commentary. Perhaps a closer study of all of his published cartoons would yield a different conclusion, but I doubt it. Here's why:
A second important consideration is the question of how a contemporary audience would have received such a publication in 1970. At that time, the women's liberation movement was extremely radical, and there was great popular resistance. If anyone needs more evidence, pick up the book Letters to Ms., which includes letters written to the magazine. Many of them were quite hostile towards women's liberation or express women's encounters with such hostility, and that's in keeping with popular attitudes at the time.
Finally, there are no nudges and winks in this little book to cue to the reader that it's meant as satire. Given that the roles it portrays were still very much accepted by the mainstream, we can only assume that most readers would have found this book to be consistent with existing understanding of men's and women's separate and unequal places in the world. I haven't seen Darrow's Children's Guide to Freud, but I'm dubious that this is sound evidence to support the claim that I'm Glad I'm a Boy! is meant to satirize mid-20th-century ideas about gender roles. Still, like any good historian, I'm always ready to consider new evidence and use it to reconsider my earlier conclusions.
Nevertheless, there is overwhelming contextual evidence from the rest of American popular culture in this period to support the idea that this book was not meant as satire. It's easy for us to imagine that as soon as women's liberation appeared on the scene, all Americans woke up and went along. That's not how historical change happens, though. For corroborating evidence, you can go to YouTube and look up TV commercials for airlines that were broadcast in the late 1960s and early 1970s. These represent the mainstream view of women at the time: that it was women's place to serve, to be ornamental, and to defer to men's superior authority. Watch these ads: you'll find no inkling that women should be allowed to pursue professions that men occupied at the time. So, for instance, no suggestion that women could or should be pilots. Need more evidence? Go to the back issues of Life in Google Books and look at the ads and features.
You'll be hard pressed to find anything but the rarest suggestion that it's okay for women to be strong, and men graceful, or that women fix things and men wait for things to be fixed. This children's book is, if anything, a resistance to Women's Lib, and a call for a return to the "good old days" of gender inequality.
I know that I'm two years too late, but I just found this, and I have to step in and correct the record. Thanks so much for posting these pages. I'll use them in my women's history and visual culture classes.
I wanted to expand on some of the hunches that have been expressed in these comments with the perspective of a professional historian. In the interest of developing a thorough argument, my comments are long, and so I'll post them in two parts.
As a women's historian, I see absolutely no evidence that this charming little book is satire. If Darrow's satirical style in his New Yorker cartoons had involved social commentary and a critique of American narrow-mindedness, then it might make sense that this book was meant as satire. But as described in his New York Time obituary, Darrow's humor, satirical as it might have been, seems to have had nothing to do with social commentary. Perhaps a closer study of all of his published cartoons would yield a different conclusion, but I doubt it. Here's why:
A second important consideration is the question of how a contemporary audience would have received such a publication in 1970. At that time, the women's liberation movement was extremely radical, and there was great popular resistance. If anyone needs more evidence, pick up the book Letters to Ms., which includes letters written to the magazine. Many of them were quite hostile towards women's liberation or express women's encounters with such hostility, and that's in keeping with popular attitudes at the time.
Here's the rest of my argument:
Finally, there are no nudges and winks in this little book to cue to the reader that it's meant as satire. Given that the roles it portrays were still very much accepted by the mainstream, we can only assume that most readers would have found this book to be consistent with existing understanding of men's and women's separate and unequal places in the world. I haven't seen Darrow's Children's Guide to Freud, but I'm dubious that this is sound evidence to support the claim that I'm Glad I'm a Boy! is meant to satirize mid-20th-century ideas about gender roles. Still, like any good historian, I'm always ready to consider new evidence and use it to reconsider my earlier conclusions.
Nevertheless, there is overwhelming contextual evidence from the rest of American popular culture in this period to support the idea that this book was not meant as satire. It's easy for us to imagine that as soon as women's liberation appeared on the scene, all Americans woke up and went along. That's not how historical change happens, though. For corroborating evidence, you can go to YouTube and look up TV commercials for airlines that were broadcast in the late 1960s and early 1970s. These represent the mainstream view of women at the time: that it was women's place to serve, to be ornamental, and to defer to men's superior authority. Watch these ads: you'll find no inkling that women should be allowed to pursue professions that men occupied at the time. So, for instance, no suggestion that women could or should be pilots. Need more evidence? Go to the back issues of Life in Google Books and look at the ads and features.
You'll be hard pressed to find anything but the rarest suggestion that it's okay for women to be strong, and men graceful, or that women fix things and men wait for things to be fixed. This children's book is, if anything, a resistance to Women's Lib, and a call for a return to the "good old days" of gender inequality.
With all due respect. Lesbianism is just another "ism": define, judge, separate, hate then eventually violence. Men are different than women and women are different than men. Biologically we follow different urges that keep our animal species populated. Granted many of us either men or women have stepped over lines of respect but these are lines of society. Society is a human construct that is sure to quickly evolve and perhaps many times devolve, however, biology, is much more profound. Are behavior is logical and recent yet our flesh and blood is timeless and our minds can only theorize but will never KNOW. Our behavior stands on the unknowable aspect of our biology. So chill out everyone and focus on what you do have control over like respect and acceptance.
love it!
love it!
Thanks for sharing this. I a university instructor and I am going to use it to teach my students about gender roles instilled in young children. Very interesting, even as a satire.
For some reason the "Girls need things fixed," part just cracks me up. I'm pretty sure in this house most of the women do the fixing, but that's just because we're too impatient to wait for the men to fix it. You know us women, always on the run. Haha
I'm glad there's still people that find this neat & glad to find it. Thank you! :)
~Erika
I was going to be shocked and horrified, but since it's satire, I'm going to have to settle for "made of win" instead.
ThanK You for sharing :D
"I work, my boyfriend works, I do all the cooking and cleaning around the house and he always fixes the shit i break. I am perfectly happy. Honestly how many women out there would rather hold a spatula as opposed to a gun? There is absolutely nothing wrong with this book except for the idiots that read it and think "ooh! another reason for me to bitch and moan about my poor poor middle class life" get over yourselfs."
Haha, you're happy? Really? Alright, well, some of us are anarchists 'idiots' who think that this kind of role play is wrong, and I agree with the other posters who say that there's nothing natural about it. And for the record, unlike you delicate woman, I would rather get my guts torn out that hold a spatula. I'd rather wield a gun, in the army I'm in right now. Don't you dare generalize that girls would prefer being weak little wives, cause I swear, there's some out there who ain't.
wow to all of the commenters who think that female roles are somehow equal, or that 'keeping a house is the noblest thing a woman can do'. *insert extremely vulgar language here* Are you insane. Its people like you who make all females look the same. We're not all weak and stupid enough to do female roles. No, some of us have actually grown a brain! Yea! I know! It's incredible! Yea, some of us don't need a man at all, and are perfectly happy being single, childless, and extremely successful, living lives that actually mean something, and we're actually determined to get our *sses out into the world and do something worthwhile. Something great that people will remember. And it won't be done if everyone ever decides to play 'female', cause that's just the most degrading, disgusting, piece of trash, thing every known. Femininity can go rot, along with its 'roles'. I don't have time for it. And just the fact that we rebel against roles, is evidence that they aren't normal.
I completely agree with the posters who wrote about the bias between racism and sexism. The stuff in the book is sexist, and some supernaturally dim-witted folks who support gender roles probably support racism too. Because they're the same concept; one class superior to the other and designed for different roles. Slave/master, woman/man. And some demonic people said that it's right because it works. Oi, I cannot believe how extremely offensive it gets once you apply it to racism. Yes, absolutely it makes everything easier when you have a woman/slave in the sidelines, domestically enslaved, while you soak up all the glory and make things out of yourselves. Isn't it just fantastic when you have someone dependent and afraid of how superior you are because you were forbidden an education? Yea, real smart.
And thank pete that women are marrying less and less, and that we've abolished the other kind of slavery that has to do with racism. Finally, you're out to see the world and take it all in.
This book just proves what I've been saying for years:
Girls keep houses.
You get a divorce, and they keep the house.
Boo-yah.
Thank you for this post! I really enjoyed it, I just advise people not to take it so seriously because it is obviously a satire.
wow! Whilst this book is hurrendous is so many ways I intend on using it as a teaching tool with primary school children to illstrate how far we have come! Our topic is the Olympics and the girls are already disgusted that, at one time, women were not allowed to partake in or even watch the olympics so it'll be interesting to develop this and explain how women have fought for equal rights. It's important we challenge stereotypes and teach our future generations not to generalise and to appreciate individuals Thank you for providing the pages! :)
I am proud to be a woman, but also know that in general guys are better than me at sports, inventing things, and making more money. I loved the book and highly recommend it.
How many times do I have to unsubscribe before I quit receiving a notice for every comment? :(
I'm not sure if this is satire or not. My feeling is if it's satire, it's not especially good satire, since it doesn't really say anything profound and it's not especially funny (although some people here disagree on that).
Also, I was a kid back then I recall that even though feminism was in the air (I'm still waiting for the promises of the 60s/70s to be kept), it still was a time where the standard gender roles were so ingrained that most people weren't questioning them;feminism's main purpose often seemd to be simple to provide fodder for stand-up comics and angry conservatives.
Even if the author was a humorist, it doesn't necessarily mean this is a satire; he might have written it because he had kids and thought they'd like it. On the other hand, the humor of New Yorker cartoonists so often escapes me that it very well could be satire.
(Oh look, three paragraphs just to say "I dunno." Oh well.)
I know that this book was meant as satire, but I'm pretty sure my best friend's mom had it, as well as my elementary school. Yay Florida.
It's definitely not politically correct, but look at the ending and read it in context. This book promotes unity, and partnership. It was written by a woman.
This is sexist even if it was meant to be a joke. There is nothing funny about sexism.
Some people are saying that it's not sexist because it doesn't actually say anything bad about boys or girls. Except that boys can be cheerleaders, girls can be doctors, girls can be strong, girls can invent stuff...etc Also it says that girls are graceful... Im a girl and I always trip and fall over, but that might just be me.
Boy Took His Picture With Girls. Click here and see what happened after that
Am here to testify what this great spell caster done for me. My names are Mary Hanson, Since Dr.IBUDU of tinalovespell@yahoo.com cast a love spell for me, things are going great in my relationship life. my lover who was cheating on me is now a loyal and committed man. I`m glad he came back to me after the break up with him because I love him, but without Dr. IBUDU help, all of this could not have happen or even be possible. He also help my friend to quire her HIV positive it is now negative! It is the first time I am using the service of a spell caster and even if I was a bit skeptical at first, I highly recommend his service to people like me who needs an extra help. All they should do is to contact Dr. IBUDU on +2348078467513 or better still reach him on his email on tinalovespell@yahoo.com
nice blog thanks for sharing..
One of the greatest books in history...loosen up and laugh....life is too short. This happens in all aspects of life...."a laughing heart does the soul good like a medicine". Thank you Mr. Darrow.
There is no hint at all that this was satire. People argue that it was because the author was a humorist, but that argument doesn't hold water … it's clearly a light hearted book; satire is generally more heavyhanded. In any case this book has been treated by many people as a children's book, and it isn't satirical in that context.
" Matthew Potts said...
It's definitely not politically correct, but look at the ending and read it in context. This book promotes unity, and partnership. It was written by a woman."
No, silly, it wasn't.
Breakup is painful, sometimes we pretend to be fine but we are not, fighting to get the one we love back is also fighting to get back our joy and happiness. After my boyfriend of one year broke up with me, I could barely speak without crying. I felt blindsided and didn't know what to do. I didn't know if I could get him back and the anxiety was unbearable. I scoured the internet and after reading countless articles and websites about spells, I came across Lord Zakuza number + 1 (740) 573-9483. I wanted our relationship back and Lord Zakuza guaranteed me that my boyfriend will come back to me. So, I followed the instructions & plans that Lord Zakuza laid out for me and within 48 hours, we were back together and so in love! I know that it doesn't always happen that quickly, but Lord Zakuza said he's spells are effective and it did! I'm so grateful and I can boldly say that if you have been broken up with and you want to get that person back, Get in touch with him for Lord Zakuza is a GOD on Earth and he also specialises on spells to get pregnant for your partner, to get cured from any sickness or diseases, to win a lottery E.T.C. I'll never forget how he helped me. Email him now via: lordzakuza7@gmail.com
Worldwide Tweets is your news, entertainment, music fashion website. We provide you with the latest breaking news and videos straight from the entertainment industry. Visit funny books online for more details.
Post a Comment