St Albans in the Washington Post ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you find it a "disgrace" that it turns out STA boys are largely like boys everywhere in the world in that they will make mistakes and be selfish and sometimes mean if they are not under direct adult supervision, or is it a "disgrace" that a once-great newspaper like the Washington Post is stooping to write an article about this incident just to make a guilt-by-association political point at the expense of stupid but not evil teenagers?

Way to keep your blinders on and perpetuate the “boys will be boys” get out of jail free pass. Boys grow into men who continue to act this way- just never around their own wives and neighbors.

NP here. It seems that you don't understand the meaning of the word "boy" or "girl."

Both words refer to the juvenile of the species, i.e. those who are not yet mature -- in character, judgment, and physical growth. This does not excuse Brett Kavanauugh-like behavior. Sorry, but if boys don't know that's crossing a line, their parents have much to answer for. However, the idea that boys who do stupid things necessarily grow into men who do the same stupid things is idiotic.

I am an ardent feminist, and I find the idea that young boys can be smeared without proof disturbing. Why? Because young girls don't have perfect judgment either. Young girls can also have issues-- a need for control, anger at being rejected, a manipulative personality, etc. I think of a case at one of the HYPs where a young woman falsely accused a young man of rape, in retaliation for his breaking up with her. He was eventually able to clear his name, but during the period it took to complete an investigation, he was suspended academically and his reputation was ruined.

I think behavior that crosses the line absolutely happens and that the majority of the cases where it's reported, it's probably true. But, sorry, there are also cases when it's just not. I was once a girl. I knew some girls who did some seriously effed up, manipulative sh*t to the boys in their lives.

Then, there are cases like that of Aziz Ansari. I cringed through the Babe article. It was a horrible example of a woman saying that she was not responsible for communicating like an adult. Is it possible that unclear communication was at the root of at least some of the NCS girls' reports? I think so.

Again, this is not excusing the boys' behavior. It's saying that girls also have to take responsibility for asserting themselves if they are uncomfortable -- and for taking care of themselves and each other.

When I was in high school, my girlfriends and I had an unbreakable code when we went to parties: we watched out for each other and we never left a girl behind by herself. None of us were assaulted at any of the parties.

Where is the line between protecting the innocent and consequences for the guilty regardless of gender? And where is the responsibility for boys/men in this process and to making sure their friend isn’t putting themselves in a bad situation as well?

My friend, this is the question of the moment, isn't it? As far as I know, the girl in the HYP case was never held to account for her false accusation. How fair is that?

On the other hand, society too often does shrug off bad male behavior -- teenage or otherwise -- as "boys will be boys." I think we can do more to clarify what "consent" means and hold both boys and girls, men and women, responsible for ensuring that consent is a non-negotiable in sexual interactions. We also need healthier societal attitudes towards sex. The idea that sexual conquest makes a boy more of man has to go. The idea that good girls are asexual and the slut-shaming that goes along with that also has to go.

I think it would be a great idea if we taught boys that they are responsible for helping to make sure that their buddies don't cross lines while drunk. For example, if they find a boy acting out of control and drunk, they need to get him home or at least keep an eye on him to make sure he doesn't do something stupid. Maybe St. Albans could consider putting this in their honor code. What good is an honor code if it doesn't govern social behavior? Since they think of themselves as a band of brothers, maybe they can use that to ensure that part of being a "bro" is not to sully the school's reputation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you find it a "disgrace" that it turns out STA boys are largely like boys everywhere in the world in that they will make mistakes and be selfish and sometimes mean if they are not under direct adult supervision, or is it a "disgrace" that a once-great newspaper like the Washington Post is stooping to write an article about this incident just to make a guilt-by-association political point at the expense of stupid but not evil teenagers?

Way to keep your blinders on and perpetuate the “boys will be boys” get out of jail free pass. Boys grow into men who continue to act this way- just never around their own wives and neighbors.

NP here. It seems that you don't understand the meaning of the word "boy" or "girl."

Both words refer to the juvenile of the species, i.e. those who are not yet mature -- in character, judgment, and physical growth. This does not excuse Brett Kavanauugh-like behavior. Sorry, but if boys don't know that's crossing a line, their parents have much to answer for. However, the idea that boys who do stupid things necessarily grow into men who do the same stupid things is idiotic.

I am an ardent feminist, and I find the idea that young boys can be smeared without proof disturbing. Why? Because young girls don't have perfect judgment either. Young girls can also have issues-- a need for control, anger at being rejected, a manipulative personality, etc. I think of a case at one of the HYPs where a young woman falsely accused a young man of rape, in retaliation for his breaking up with her. He was eventually able to clear his name, but during the period it took to complete an investigation, he was suspended academically and his reputation was ruined.

I think behavior that crosses the line absolutely happens and that the majority of the cases where it's reported, it's probably true. But, sorry, there are also cases when it's just not. I was once a girl. I knew some girls who did some seriously effed up, manipulative sh*t to the boys in their lives.

Then, there are cases like that of Aziz Ansari. I cringed through the Babe article. It was a horrible example of a woman saying that she was not responsible for communicating like an adult. Is it possible that unclear communication was at the root of at least some of the NCS girls' reports? I think so.

Again, this is not excusing the boys' behavior. It's saying that girls also have to take responsibility for asserting themselves if they are uncomfortable -- and for taking care of themselves and each other.

When I was in high school, my girlfriends and I had an unbreakable code when we went to parties: we watched out for each other and we never left a girl behind by herself. None of us were assaulted at any of the parties.

Where is the line between protecting the innocent and consequences for the guilty regardless of gender? And where is the responsibility for boys/men in this process and to making sure their friend isn’t putting themselves in a bad situation as well?

My friend, this is the question of the moment, isn't it? As far as I know, the girl in the HYP case was never held to account for her false accusation. How fair is that?

On the other hand, society too often does shrug off bad male behavior -- teenage or otherwise -- as "boys will be boys." I think we can do more to clarify what "consent" means and hold both boys and girls, men and women, responsible for ensuring that consent is a non-negotiable in sexual interactions. We also need healthier societal attitudes towards sex. The idea that sexual conquest makes a boy more of man has to go. The idea that good girls are asexual and the slut-shaming that goes along with that also has to go.

I think it would be a great idea if we taught boys that they are responsible for helping to make sure that their buddies don't cross lines while drunk. For example, if they find a boy acting out of control and drunk, they need to get him home or at least keep an eye on him to make sure he doesn't do something stupid. Maybe St. Albans could consider putting this in their honor code. What good is an honor code if it doesn't govern social behavior? Since they think of themselves as a band of brothers, maybe they can use that to ensure that part of being a "bro" is not to sully the school's reputation.

parent of a girl here...i love this. it’s always girls must band together to protect each other but what about boys holding other boys accountable? the boys will be boys thing is so ridiculous, not to mention the adulation of sexual conquests...for the boys. if these schools (and parents) are truly striving to raise good men, they would address this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kid is at Gonzaga. Just scanned that yearbook and it looks pretty clean by comparison. Guess we made the right choice for all-boys school!

I can see why your kid is at Gonzaga, if he inherited your limited ability for reasoning.

One yearbook at St. Albans is indicative of the schools’s caliber? I have heard much about Gonzaga that is not to its credit. I made the silly assumption that the bad behavior of a minority was probably not indicative of the majority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid is at Gonzaga. Just scanned that yearbook and it looks pretty clean by comparison. Guess we made the right choice for all-boys school!

I can see why your kid is at Gonzaga, if he inherited your limited ability for reasoning.

One yearbook at St. Albans is indicative of the schools’s caliber? I have heard much about Gonzaga that is not to its credit. I made the silly assumption that the bad behavior of a minority was probably not indicative of the majority.

It's actually a lot more than one yearbook. It's years of bad behavior. Where there is smoke, there's fire. What's done in the dark will come to light Don't mess with Jesus nor His people. The TRUTH heals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid is at Gonzaga. Just scanned that yearbook and it looks pretty clean by comparison. Guess we made the right choice for all-boys school!

I can see why your kid is at Gonzaga, if he inherited your limited ability for reasoning.

One yearbook at St. Albans is indicative of the schools’s caliber? I have heard much about Gonzaga that is not to its credit. I made the silly assumption that the bad behavior of a minority was probably not indicative of the majority.

It's actually a lot more than one yearbook. It's years of bad behavior. Where there is smoke, there's fire. What's done in the dark will come to light Don't mess with Jesus nor His people. The TRUTH heals.

For every bad behavior incident that involves STA, there are 10 ghat involve Gonzaga. It’s just that Gonzaga’s misdeeds don’t get in the Washington Post, because it’s not as prestigious a school and doesn’t evoke schadenfreude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid is at Gonzaga. Just scanned that yearbook and it looks pretty clean by comparison. Guess we made the right choice for all-boys school!

I can see why your kid is at Gonzaga, if he inherited your limited ability for reasoning.

One yearbook at St. Albans is indicative of the schools’s caliber? I have heard much about Gonzaga that is not to its credit. I made the silly assumption that the bad behavior of a minority was probably not indicative of the majority.

It's actually a lot more than one yearbook. It's years of bad behavior. Where there is smoke, there's fire. What's done in the dark will come to light Don't mess with Jesus nor His people. The TRUTH heals.

The charge of limited reasoning sticks. It seems PP is incapable of thought outside slogans.