Georgetown Prep is taking a beating with this Kanvanugh scandal...does it deserve it?

[Anonymous]

One of biggest problems as it relates to BK is that not only does he appear to be stuck in the era where drinking excessively is ok, but he celebrates it as if it's all a big joke. When a federal judge still thinks it's ok to make jokes about "what happens at prep.." or how much he drank in law school, it shows a lack of maturity and seriousness.

This is my issue with some people (not all) from these private schools, particularly the Catholic schools. There is a multi generational pervasive attitude about excessive drinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In case anyone thinks that GP's yearbook ugliness was unusual at the time, here is a piece about Holton's yearbooks from the same era.

It certainly doesn't excuse anything, but it's reflective of a pervasive culture at the time.

http://cultofthe1st.blogspot.com/2018/09/why-christine-blasey-fords-high-school_19.html?m=1

So you can use this kind of information against her but when it comes to him it’s just “boys will be boys?”

I am SO SICK of seeing this non sense.

A girl could have sex with a different guy every night, consensually. Then becaus it’s her choice, say NO one night and not have her previous times of consensual sex used against her! A woman doesn’t have sex with one person thinking “welp since I had sex with this guy I guess I can’t say no to anyone else!” It’s infuriating.

If she was truly nearly raped, it doesn’t matter what a damn yearbook says, she still didn’t deserve it!!

I'm sorry, but I never said (or implied) that, in any way shape or form, she "deserved" it. I posted the article to show how ubiquitous the culture was, as portrayed in yearbooks at the time. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One of biggest problems as it relates to BK is that not only does he appear to be stuck in the era where drinking excessively is ok, but he celebrates it as if it's all a big joke. When a federal judge still thinks it's ok to make jokes about "what happens at prep.." or how much he drank in law school, it shows a lack of maturity and seriousness.

This is my issue with some people (not all) from these private schools, particularly the Catholic schools. There is a multi generational pervasive attitude about excessive drinking.

True.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One of biggest problems as it relates to BK is that not only does he appear to be stuck in the era where drinking excessively is ok, but he celebrates it as if it's all a big joke. When a federal judge still thinks it's ok to make jokes about "what happens at prep.." or how much he drank in law school, it shows a lack of maturity and seriousness.

This is my issue with some people (not all) from these private schools, particularly the Catholic schools. There is a multi generational pervasive attitude about excessive drinking.

I absolutely agree, and it's troubling the extent to which they don't seem get that it's not normal and everyone isn't doing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that these kids live in 1952. Their mother's don't work(compared to 70% of mother's nationwide). They arent seeing girls outperform them in class, which is what happens at every coed school. They don't learn to see women as equals. Add in the one upsmanship, and you get a bunch of swaggerers who objectify women. I know people who teach at all male Catholic high schools. They tell me that their students are complete sexists.

The problem is you don't know what you are talking about. I have a son at an all male HS that is also being mentioned on this thread. Most of these students attended coed schools before HS so it's not like they have never been in a classroom with girls before. He has a part-time job and works with women and girls a few days a week during the school year and all summer long. His boss is a woman. His favorite teacher at the school is a woman. The vast majority of the moms at the school work. I am the primary breadwinner in our house and my DS knows that. He freely admits his younger sister is a better athlete. Stereotypes and prejudices like yours help me to realize even more the value of an all male HS.

I have yet to meet a Prep or Gonzaga kid with a working mother. That's part of the whole cultural attitude that breeds these boys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that these kids live in 1952. Their mother's don't work(compared to 70% of mother's nationwide). They arent seeing girls outperform them in class, which is what happens at every coed school. They don't learn to see women as equals. Add in the one upsmanship, and you get a bunch of swaggerers who objectify women. I know people who teach at all male Catholic high schools. They tell me that their students are complete sexists.

The problem is you don't know what you are talking about. I have a son at an all male HS that is also being mentioned on this thread. Most of these students attended coed schools before HS so it's not like they have never been in a classroom with girls before. He has a part-time job and works with women and girls a few days a week during the school year and all summer long. His boss is a woman. His favorite teacher at the school is a woman. The vast majority of the moms at the school work. I am the primary breadwinner in our house and my DS knows that. He freely admits his younger sister is a better athlete. Stereotypes and prejudices like yours help me to realize even more the value of an all male HS.

I have yet to meet a Prep or Gonzaga kid with a working mother. That's part of the whole cultural attitude that breeds these boys.

I know a Prep mom who is a doctor. I doubt she is the only WOHM. You are out of touch. One could better argue that the boys have more free rein because there are more two income families and therefore less supervision/involvement than needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that these kids live in 1952. Their mother's don't work(compared to 70% of mother's nationwide). They arent seeing girls outperform them in class, which is what happens at every coed school. They don't learn to see women as equals. Add in the one upsmanship, and you get a bunch of swaggerers who objectify women. I know people who teach at all male Catholic high schools. They tell me that their students are complete sexists.

The problem is you don't know what you are talking about. I have a son at an all male HS that is also being mentioned on this thread. Most of these students attended coed schools before HS so it's not like they have never been in a classroom with girls before. He has a part-time job and works with women and girls a few days a week during the school year and all summer long. His boss is a woman. His favorite teacher at the school is a woman. The vast majority of the moms at the school work. I am the primary breadwinner in our house and my DS knows that. He freely admits his younger sister is a better athlete. Stereotypes and prejudices like yours help me to realize even more the value of an all male HS.

I have yet to meet a Prep or Gonzaga kid with a working mother. That's part of the whole cultural attitude that breeds these boys.

I know a Prep mom who is a doctor. I doubt she is the only WOHM. You are out of touch. One could better argue that the boys have more free rein because there are more two income families and therefore less supervision/involvement than needed.

I know her too. STA transfer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that these kids live in 1952. Their mother's don't work(compared to 70% of mother's nationwide). They arent seeing girls outperform them in class, which is what happens at every coed school. They don't learn to see women as equals. Add in the one upsmanship, and you get a bunch of swaggerers who objectify women. I know people who teach at all male Catholic high schools. They tell me that their students are complete sexists.

The problem is you don't know what you are talking about. I have a son at an all male HS that is also being mentioned on this thread. Most of these students attended coed schools before HS so it's not like they have never been in a classroom with girls before. He has a part-time job and works with women and girls a few days a week during the school year and all summer long. His boss is a woman. His favorite teacher at the school is a woman. The vast majority of the moms at the school work. I am the primary breadwinner in our house and my DS knows that. He freely admits his younger sister is a better athlete. Stereotypes and prejudices like yours help me to realize even more the value of an all male HS.

I have yet to meet a Prep or Gonzaga kid with a working mother. That's part of the whole cultural attitude that breeds these boys.

Well, then, you don’t get out much. Of the boys I know who currently attend prep, 75% of the moms work and in fact by all appearances are primary or major contributors to household income. Admittedly, my sample size is less than 10, but still...I think this is more prevalent with the non-Catholics who attend Prep, but there are Catholic women in my sample size too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In case anyone thinks that GP's yearbook ugliness was unusual at the time, here is a piece about Holton's yearbooks from the same era.

It certainly doesn't excuse anything, but it's reflective of a pervasive culture at the time.

http://cultofthe1st.blogspot.com/2018/09/why-christine-blasey-fords-high-school_19.html?m=1

So you can use this kind of information against her but when it comes to him it’s just “boys will be boys?”

I am SO SICK of seeing this non sense.

A girl could have sex with a different guy every night, consensually. Then becaus it’s her choice, say NO one night and not have her previous times of consensual sex used against her! A woman doesn’t have sex with one person thinking “welp since I had sex with this guy I guess I can’t say no to anyone else!” It’s infuriating.

If she was truly nearly raped, it doesn’t matter what a damn yearbook says, she still didn’t deserve it!!

I'm sorry, but I never said (or implied) that, in any way shape or form, she "deserved" it. I posted the article to show how ubiquitous the culture was, as portrayed in yearbooks at the time. Period.

Did you read the article you posted?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that these kids live in 1952. Their mother's don't work(compared to 70% of mother's nationwide). They arent seeing girls outperform them in class, which is what happens at every coed school. They don't learn to see women as equals. Add in the one upsmanship, and you get a bunch of swaggerers who objectify women. I know people who teach at all male Catholic high schools. They tell me that their students are complete sexists.

That is completely ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that these kids live in 1952. Their mother's don't work(compared to 70% of mother's nationwide). They arent seeing girls outperform them in class, which is what happens at every coed school. They don't learn to see women as equals. Add in the one upsmanship, and you get a bunch of swaggerers who objectify women. I know people who teach at all male Catholic high schools. They tell me that their students are complete sexists.

Oh, so everyone's sons need to be put in more distracting settings and have their confidence beat out of them for a "real education"?

fyi, boys have lower GPAs but for the last 40 years have still outperformed girls on SAT math. Many PhDs and MDs argue single-sex classrooms help boys thrive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that these kids live in 1952. Their mother's don't work(compared to 70% of mother's nationwide). They arent seeing girls outperform them in class, which is what happens at every coed school. They don't learn to see women as equals. Add in the one upsmanship, and you get a bunch of swaggerers who objectify women. I know people who teach at all male Catholic high schools. They tell me that their students are complete sexists.

The problem is you don't know what you are talking about. I have a son at an all male HS that is also being mentioned on this thread. Most of these students attended coed schools before HS so it's not like they have never been in a classroom with girls before. He has a part-time job and works with women and girls a few days a week during the school year and all summer long. His boss is a woman. His favorite teacher at the school is a woman. The vast majority of the moms at the school work. I am the primary breadwinner in our house and my DS knows that. He freely admits his younger sister is a better athlete. Stereotypes and prejudices like yours help me to realize even more the value of an all male HS.

I have yet to meet a Prep or Gonzaga kid with a working mother. That's part of the whole cultural attitude that breeds these boys.

I know a Prep mom who is a doctor. I doubt she is the only WOHM. You are out of touch. One could better argue that the boys have more free rein because there are more two income families and therefore less supervision/involvement than needed.

I know her too. STA transfer.

Nope. Sorry. Family never connected to STA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that these kids live in 1952. Their mother's don't work(compared to 70% of mother's nationwide). They arent seeing girls outperform them in class, which is what happens at every coed school. They don't learn to see women as equals. Add in the one upsmanship, and you get a bunch of swaggerers who objectify women. I know people who teach at all male Catholic high schools. They tell me that their students are complete sexists.

Oh, so everyone's sons need to be put in more distracting settings and have their confidence beat out of them for a "real education"?

fyi, boys have lower GPAs but for the last 40 years have still outperformed girls on SAT math. Many PhDs and MDs argue single-sex classrooms help boys thrive.

So sitting in a classroom full of boys who might do better than them academically is good for them, but sharing a classroom with girls who might do better than them academically is having "their confidence beat out of them"? I'm not sure whether to hope you knew the implications of that or you didn't when you posted it, but neither is a good look.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that these kids live in 1952. Their mother's don't work(compared to 70% of mother's nationwide). They arent seeing girls outperform them in class, which is what happens at every coed school. They don't learn to see women as equals. Add in the one upsmanship, and you get a bunch of swaggerers who objectify women. I know people who teach at all male Catholic high schools. They tell me that their students are complete sexists.

Oh, so everyone's sons need to be put in more distracting settings and have their confidence beat out of them for a "real education"?

fyi, boys have lower GPAs but for the last 40 years have still outperformed girls on SAT math. Many PhDs and MDs argue single-sex classrooms help boys thrive.

So sitting in a classroom full of boys who might do better than them academically is good for them, but sharing a classroom with girls who might do better than them academically is having "their confidence beat out of them"? I'm not sure whether to hope you knew the implications of that or you didn't when you posted it, but neither is a good look.

Both girls and boys thrive in single-sex classrooms. If psychotic lawyers didn't rule the roost, public schools would switch to single-sex classrooms and society would be better for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that these kids live in 1952. Their mother's don't work(compared to 70% of mother's nationwide). They arent seeing girls outperform them in class, which is what happens at every coed school. They don't learn to see women as equals. Add in the one upsmanship, and you get a bunch of swaggerers who objectify women. I know people who teach at all male Catholic high schools. They tell me that their students are complete sexists.

Oh, so everyone's sons need to be put in more distracting settings and have their confidence beat out of them for a "real education"?

fyi, boys have lower GPAs but for the last 40 years have still outperformed girls on SAT math. Many PhDs and MDs argue single-sex classrooms help boys thrive.

So sitting in a classroom full of boys who might do better than them academically is good for them, but sharing a classroom with girls who might do better than them academically is having "their confidence beat out of them"? I'm not sure whether to hope you knew the implications of that or you didn't when you posted it, but neither is a good look.

Both girls and boys thrive in single-sex classrooms. If psychotic lawyers didn't rule the roost, public schools would switch to single-sex classrooms and society would be better for it.

To the extent your reasoning is true, the problem with it is that they both do better in single-sex classrooms primarily due to the same underlying social biases that lead to gender-based discrimination in other areas. If we're going to break down biases, we need to do it at all levels because reinforcing it at any level, especially one as critical as education, only reinforces it at all levels.