@9:31

I disagee to teach our daughters (and our sons) ...avoid sick guys, whose problems manifest themselves in verbally or physically abusive ways.

Okay I agree to avoid sick guys (and girls), verbally abusive (guys and girls)

But I take it one step further - you do not trust anybody until they prove you otherwise. Anybody - even girls - can seem normal for few months. Then they burn your house down because you talk to another guy/girl.

You get to know somebody and their friend and their family and you judge them on their actions - not what they don't do but what they do. Do they treat you with respect, do they support you in positive persuits, do they dicourage you from negative persuits.

We need to teach our kids not to just "not be bad" but to be good.

Her article says judge a book by it's cover and anybody associated with that book is bad. It's wrong and will not keep her daughter safe.

Replace "rich lacrosse player" with the words "black football players" and re-read the article. it's insanely satrical.

Actually, what I read her to say is that when we teach our kids to avoid a certain type of boy it gives them a false sense of being able to tell who will hurt them, and who won't. Here's her argument:

This is a matter of practicality: I don’t think it’s at all useful, in the sense of being proactively protective, to point fingers at a group and say those kinds of boys (or men) do these kinds of things. Doing so both normalizes bad behavior and attitudes (like binge drinking or the disrespect of women) and creates a false sense of security. Avoid lacrosse players or entitled rich guys or guys covered in muscles who drink a lot, girls might think, and you’re safe.

The real message to our daughters from the Huguely/Love tragedy out to be instead: avoid sick guys, whose problems manifest themselves in verbally or physically abusive ways. And if you’re not sure whether an angry outburst crosses the line, ask someone you trust. Preferably a parent. Assuming, that is, that your parent is able to recognize and acknowledge out-of-bounds behavior in the first place, which, unfortunately, isn’t always a given.

Landon has impacted our school's reputation, Holton-Arms, on more than one occasion. The SAT cheating scandal was done at our school and even though our girls had NOTHING to do with it, they were penalized and their scores thrown out. Then the internet sexing scandal which Holton girls were referred to as 'slam pigs'. I prefer my daughter not attend any Landon functions but I allow it with the caveat to be careful because I notice Landon boys seem to be a bit more aggressive. But I also tell her to be careful and attentive for any function she attends anywhere. Holton did not deserve to be associated with such awful scandals. I, personally, wish Landon was not our 'brother' school.

Anonymous wrote:The article states that the Duke lacrosse players were "accused and exonerated". How is that irresponsible reporting?

If you were ever excused of molesting a child but were falsley accused - would you think it responsible for you to be know as the - "person who was accused of molestation (oh but was exonerated)".

Also would you like it to be in an article about the bad behvrior of "people like you".

He was accused of RAPE and NOT GUILTY - not just exonerated. Exonerated is not "not guilty" - it sounds like he got off free because his parents had money. The prosecution went to JAIL because they wanted so badly for rich kids to go to jail they falsified evidence.

The whole article seems to be based upon generalizations made by others without actually coming to the actual facts. She clearly states that her or her daughter do not know any Landon children or parents, yet she's writing an article basing off the Landon Community which I think is a tad unfair. Not the best form of journalism.

The article states that the Duke lacrosse players were "accused and exonerated". How is that irresponsible reporting?

Anonymous wrote:Really? I thought it was insightful. What about it made you think it was satire? This is an honest question.

It's satirical because in one breath she says not to stereotype then she goes on to stereotype.

Replace "rich lacrosse player" with the words "black football players" and re-read the article. it's insanely satrical.

(“Landon boys” change to...) Black football players are a big topic of conversation in Julia’s world. They’re said to be really bad news

You never drink from a cup offered by a (Landon boy change to...) Black football player, say these girls, who don’t necessarily know any (Landon boys change to...) black football players

“It isn’t fair to prejudge a whole group of guys because of the bad behavior of a few,” is the kind of thing I say to her and her friends, and I try to actually believe it. For it’s true we shouldn’t prejudge people like (Landon lacrosse players replace with) black football players,

Despite all that, I stick by my “don’t judge (frat boys and jocks change to...) black football players by their labels” stance. But it’s not out of some abstract desire to do the right thing; it’s a gut level urge to protect my daughters from ending up like singer Rihanna,


Does she still sound like a legit reporter - really? It's a little Onion meets Ann Coulter for me. But we are talking about it so I guess she has done her job well.

Do you know how many guys in DC were convicted of 2nd degree murder last year - how many of them were LAX players?

Also, mentioning that somebody was accused or rape who was actually innocent of rape is just irresponsible reporting. (BTW the lying accusor went on to stab her boyfriend to death and I am guessing she was not a LAX player either.)