quote:Ms. Wolfe says she and her husband knew it was coming. She says they tried to warn school officials — and then bam: the prank caller beat up Billy in the bathroom of McNair Middle School.
Not long after, a boy on the school bus pummeled Billy, but somehow Billy was the one suspended, despite his pleas that the bus’s security camera would prove his innocence. Days later, Ms. Wolfe recalls, the principal summoned her, presented a box of tissues, and played the bus video that clearly showed Billy was telling the truth.
Things got worse. At Woodland Junior High School, some boys in a wood shop class goaded a bigger boy into believing that Billy had been talking trash about his mother. Billy, busy building a miniature house, didn’t see it coming: the boy hit him so hard in the left cheek that he briefly lost consciousness.
The article says that some school officials think that Billy is at least partly to blame for the amount he gets the crap beaten out of him, but it doesn't state their reasons for believing that. I for one would really like to hear their reasoning and what evidence they have to give.
The story just makes me wanna go down there and beat the snot out of all the people who are beating him up... or teach the poor kid martial arts... or something. No one deserves treatment like that, and I'm shocked the school isn't doing more to cover the poor kids back.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
I suspect their suspicion is because it has happened at multiple schools. Note: Woodland JHS and McNair Middle School. That having been said, I agree with you.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I find the kid's last comment interesting. The appropriate way to deal with grafiti is to tear pages out of your textbook if you don't feel it has anything worthwhile on it? Interesting. I'm in no way excusing the bullies, but I think I can guess why it only happens to Billy.
The combination of stubborness is a bit frightening. The school district doesn't call the cops when kids have to go get stitches or momentarily lose conciousness? Wha? Meanwhile, the parents leave their child in a dangerous situation he has no control over?
I almost feel the parents should be hit with neglect charges. Your son is in danger - get him out! Let's worry about who's right and wrong after he's safe.
This is so wrong on so many counts.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
That "I suspect that he deserves it" argument is startling in its worthlessness!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I almost feel the parents should be hit with neglect charges. Your son is in danger - get him out! Let's worry about who's right and wrong after he's safe.
And do what? Not everybody can home school or send their child to private school.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Or can afford to move to another school district.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
And in many places, it's illegal to take your child out of school without placing him in another one. I know some parents who got thrown in jail for that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Why aren't there assault charges being made?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't know. The description of how the parents respond to the situation makes me wonder about whether they get some kind of primary gain from it all.
To say he's partly responsible overlooks that he may not be to "blame." I'd believe the problem may be something about him, but that's not the same as him seeking it out.
When I was in middle school I started getting ear infections and missing school all the time. I don't think people always react to stress in conscious, logical ways.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
Middle school sucks. :-(
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm shocked the school isn't doing more to cover the poor kids back.
I'm not.
quote:Why aren't there assault charges being made?
I'm not sure. Someone gets knocked out, the police need to be called. Heck, if he showed up at school with bruises from being punched in the mouth, they'd have to call the police.*
I'm not sure why the parents haven't called the police, though. Just because the school hasn't doesn't mean they can't.
*Edit: or report to whatever the proper agency is.
[ March 24, 2008, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Exactly.
edit to add: One would think that reporting it to the local police would come somewhere before reporting it to the NYT. And one might also wonder why whoever did this report wasn't asking that rather obvious question.
[ March 24, 2008, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
I remember when I was in school, the administrators rarely cared about bullying. Fortunately, I never had to worry with it...but in middle school my sister did. My parents tried talking to the school, and the school didn't care. Fortunately, it was really only one kid who was doing the bullying, and my parents called his father and put a stop to it. The boys father first took a "boys will be boys" stance, but then my dad simply said that this was simply a courtesy call and the next time his son tried intimidating my sister the communication would be through the family lawyer. Fortunately that put a stop to it, however the school gave my sister a hard time about making a legal threat at first...but my dad was able to put a stop to that as well.
I think it is bad that you can't depend on the school to create a positive environment, but that is how things seem to work. Parents need to be active in their children's lives, and seek outside legal help when the schools refuse to help.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It is amazing to me that what is brushed off when it happens to little kids is grounds for enormous lawsuits when it happens to adults.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
The article says that they do have police reports on some of the incidents, and that the teachers have refused to call the police in other cases. I know where I live if you get injured by someone else at school and the school doesn't report it, the police don't take reports by the parents very seriously.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I know it's kind of backwards, but I always feel sorry for the bullies, too. They often end up chronically unhappy, guilty, and lonely. Bullying also goes both ways--the bullies at school are probably bullied by their parents or older siblings, causing them to lash out at weaker targets.
I experienced bullying from both sides--and although it's gotten more subtle, I'm amazed at how prevalent it is in the adult world.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote: They often end up chronically unhappy, guilty, and lonely.
Not really. It's a nice thing to tell ourselves when we are bullied, but sadly, bullies often are just fine and just get high off of pushing other people around. The alpha dogs are often healthiest, and it sucks, but often kids are not bullies because they are secretly miserable - they are bullies because they can get away with it.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I suppose one of the comforts of religion is the notion that bullies will get their comeuppance. But the downside is I will get my comeuppance too.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
There are different types of bullies. There are those who just like throwing their weight around, the aggressives. They have a similar approach to most people, but it stands out more when they are dealing with weaker kids.
There are also the hierachical bullies, who crap on those below them but are submissive to those above them.
(There're also the kids who are giving a provoking, whiny little snot a well deserved pounding.)
I come from a fighting culture. I grew up fighting with my peers for respect. As such, I have a ingrown disgust for weakness. The first type of bully wouldn't set this off in me. The second would. They're the ones who I think Launchy was describing.
We didn't have that much of a bullying problem in my schools because we used to beat the crap out of the second type if they started bullying someone, in part because of the wolves/sheep/dog dynamic we were raised with and in part because of the loathing they inspired.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I'm shocked the school isn't doing more to cover the poor kids back.
I'm not.
quote:Why aren't there assault charges being made?
I'm not sure. Someone gets knocked out, the police need to be called. Heck, if he showed up at school with bruises from being punched in the mouth, they'd have to call the police.*
I'm not sure why the parents haven't called the police, though. Just because the school hasn't doesn't mean they can't.
*Edit: or report to whatever the proper agency is.
Dag: According to the New York Times the school faculty has sole discretion in deciding whether an incident involving students requires police action. In one incident, some of the boys convinced a large boy that Wolfe had been saying terrible things about the boy's mother and the boy knocked Wolfe out with a punch to the face. A faculty member said in response that Wolfe got what was coming to him. It appears the faculty member believes in part that Wolfe had indeed said slanderous things about the Boy's mother. ----
This isn't easy to say, but that article opened up some very large wounds for me. It did not surprise me that Wolfe himself is described by teachers as nice, but sometimes disruptive and even disrespectful. He sounds like a boy struggling with a broken faith school, and in the goodness of others. I think the schools he has attended have utterly failed him, and while his parents may not have done everything right, I feel they did about as much as any parent can reasonably be expected to do. School administrators should step in long before lawyers need to start talking.
I think school bullying while not the most terrible thing that children face in regards to their education, is a horrible thing that requires solutions for both those bullying and those bullied. Neither is being properly addressed. I am not as knowledgeable as to how those who bully others could be stopped. But I do know that parents who tell their children to merely ignore bullies, that that should be enough to make them go away, are doing a disservice to their children.
Children should be comfortable coming to their parents with problems involving other students. Too many student's falsely believe that what happens amongst students should be adjudicated by the student run justice system. Such a system is believed to exist by the youth, but in reality does not. If a bullying situation has been going on for some time, and a child goes to his parents out of desperation, I can't say how important it is that parents get the school administration to act without delay. If the school administration drags their feet, then deal with the bully's parents directly. If that recourse is not available, then get law enforcement involved.
To me allowing a bully to prey on other children is like watching a human being slowly starve to death while you insist there was nothing you could do as you provided them with plenty of water.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag: According to the New York Times the school faculty has sole discretion in deciding whether an incident involving students requires police action.
They have sole discretion as to whether they will call the police for assaults in school. I seriously doubt they have any way to prevent the family from pursuing charges on their own.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Dag: According to the New York Times the school faculty has sole discretion in deciding whether an incident involving students requires police action.
They have sole discretion as to whether they will call the police for assaults in school. I seriously doubt whether they have any way to prevent the family from pursuing charges on their own.
Right, I meant to say that but I seem to have omitted the latter part. Would you say it would hurt a parent's case in such matters if the school administration is not behind the parents who filed a complaint?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It might. On the other hand, if there are medical records (if he has had stitches, there should be, and at least in one case video tape...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It might make it harder to get the police or prosecutor to listen, but it certainly wouldn't hurt their case in court.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: It might make it harder to get the police or prosecutor to listen, but it certainly wouldn't hurt their case in court.
But with an administration hostile towards the boy being bullied couldn't they, (the administration) be called as witnesses for the defense? edit: As in the defense could point out that an accusation of bullying lacks credibility if the school administration disagrees that bullying is taking place. Seems plausible that the school administration would be hostile towards any legal action they disagreed with.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
What would they testify to, though? Their opinion about who was at fault isn't admissible. Their accounts of third party witness statements aren't admissible.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: What would they testify to, though? Their opinion about who was at fault isn't admissible. Their accounts of third party witness statements aren't admissible.
Character witnesses? When Wolfe was knocked out by a student who was lied to buy some of the bullies wouldn't the teacher who was officiating in that class be called on the testify as to what they thought happened? In this case the teacher would testify with the sentiment that, "Wolfe in part deserved it," as part of the testimony.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
In one incident, some of the boys convinced a large boy that Wolfe had been saying terrible things about the boy's mother and the boy knocked Wolfe out with a punch to the face. A faculty member said in response that Wolfe got what was coming to him. It appears the faculty member believes in part that Wolfe had indeed said slanderous things about the Boy's mother.
It is deeply disturbing to me that an adult would EVER say a child "had it coming to him." Even if the boy really did make disparaging comments about another boy's mother, a punch in the face is never deserved. If a teacher/administrator said that about my child, I'd be filing complaints with the school board, the police or whoever I could to get that adult out of the school system completely.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Character witnesses?
It's possible this would get in - character witnesses are allowed - but the ability to impeach with a general condemnation of the school's attitude toward bullying would make it unlikely they would do that.
quote:When Wolfe was knocked out by a student who was lied to buy some of the bullies wouldn't the teacher was was officiating in that class be called on the testify as to what they thought happened?
Only if he witnessed it directly.
quote:In this case the teacher would testify with the sentiment that, "Wolfe in part deserved it," as part of the testimony.
He wouldn't be allowed to testify to that. Even if her were, that's not an element to a defense of assault.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Unless the defendant is a saint, it is rarely a good idea to open up the floodgate of character evidence.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I'm not sure where the parents could move that would be safer than Fayetteville. If there's something different about the kid, he's going to have just as hard of a time in Springdale or Rogers. And there he would be getting beaten up by redneck farmboys instead of the kids of namby pamby college professors who put merlot on their cheerios.
Northwest Arkansas is an amazingly wonderful place to live... unless there's something different about you. Then you're farked.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:And there he would be getting beaten up by redneck farmboys instead of the kids of namby pamby college professors who put merlot on their cheerios.
Hey Pix, you wanna be careful what you say about the kids of college profs around me. I'm the kid of two of them. And I know a number of kids of college profs -- myself included -- who could school a large proportion of farmboys. The assumption that we're namby pamby is utterly false, just as is the assumption that farmboys are neither smart, nor geeky, nor tolerant. I know a number of farmboys who are all of the above.
Also, where the hell do people get the idea that college profs are rich, huh? They're really not! I mean, the occational college prof has a 6 figure salary, but that's extraordinarily rare. Most college salaries range from like $100,000 at the uppermost end to in the $40,000s. My parents were both pretty senior and well acclaimed profs, and we certainly didn't exactly have it easy. Didn't have it especially hard, but merlot on cereal? Gimme a frackin' break.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Alcon: Yeah, but in Fayetteville, you can live high on the hog for 40K. Heck, You could afford a DOUBLE-wide!!
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
I can back up his statement that most profs don't have much money, unless they don't have kids. Those profs have a fine time of things, but the same goes for any profession.
Ex: One of my professors, Wheeler, has a rolex, and told me he makes plenty of money (we were discussing the viability of living as a professor), and another professor, Neuner, has three children and commented that she never has any extra money to spend, after bills.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
btw, the joke about Merlot on the cheerios wasn't to imply that they were rich, but to imply they were snooty.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
If you want to know exactly what they make actually you can generally find the average salaries for public University Profs posted publicly, because they are public employees. Here I found the averages for the University of Arkansas:
For yearly salaries? If you've got a family? I mean it ain't poor, but that's definitely not merlot on cereal material.
Aside from all that you're just being plain insulting. To both farmers and professor's kids.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:btw, the joke about Merlot on the cheerios wasn't to imply that they were rich, but to imply they were snooty.
Fair enough, but the way you worded the whole statement was still pretty insulting to both college prof's kids and to farmer's kids. I've some friends who are farmer's kids who'd be just as raring to prove you wrong that farmer's kids are intolerant as I am to prove your wrong that us college prof's kids are snooty, snobby and weak.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Not to mention that merlot on cereal sounds nasty.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Alcon: I grew up in the area around Fayetteville and went to college at the University of Arkansas. I think I know the people of the area a little better than you.
I moved away from there as soon as I finished grad school.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Pix, I don't care if you know the people of the area better than me. What you said remains to be highly insulting. What you said was that the people of Fayetteville were a bunch of "namby pamby college professor's kids who put merlot on their cereal". That's not just talking about the people of Fayetteville, that's talking about college prof's kids in general. You said that the kids of Fayetteville were namby pamby and snooty cause they are college prof's kids. That's immensely insulting to anyone -- such as me -- who is a college prof's kid. And it's also an ignorant and unfair generalization. Just shows me how many college prof's kids you know.
It would be equivalent to me saying "Well duh everyone who lives in Bloomington is self absorbed and self important, not to mention annoying as all hell. The town's full of fairies!"
I would note, that's not something I'm likely to say seriously since I'm very dear friends with many of Bloomington's 'fairies' I'm just using it as an example of how what you said was insulting.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Alcon: I said Merlot on CHEERIOS. They use Rose' on grapenuts and White on Honey Bunches of Oats.
I've known a ton of college professor's kids in my time and they all had a general air of snootiness. This didn't stop us from being friends, however, since I got along much better with them than the rednecks that surrounded us. At least we valued being smart. We had that in common.
If you want to continue to take offense, knock yourself out. I'll be busy with the rednecks I offended with this post.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Alternately you could, you know, recognize that your statement could be offensive, and apologize. Really that hard?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I've known a ton of college professor's kids in my time and they all had a general air of snootiness.
Guess what my parents do?
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: Alternately you could, you know, recognize that your statement could be offensive, and apologize. Really that hard?
Clearly.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
I don't know. You can get bottles of Merlot around here (Las Vegas) for less than $4. I think that's comparable to the price of milk.
But the idea of wine in breakfast cereal doen't strike me as snooty so much as it does gross.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Godric 2.0: I don't know. You can get bottles of Merlot around here (Las Vegas) for less than $4. I think that's comparable to the price of milk.
Probably not on a per-ounce basis.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I would just like to point out the poor writing of the article. "Heh-heh?"
Some of the he pictures in the slide show are hard to look at.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: btw, the joke about Merlot on the cheerios wasn't to imply that they were rich, but to imply they were snooty.
My father was a college professor and we were neither rich nor snooty growing up. I didn't become rich and snooty until I became a professor myself.
[ March 25, 2008, 08:16 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: Alternately you could, you know, recognize that your statement could be offensive, and apologize. Really that hard?
I've long since given up the idea that pixiest ever apologizes for anything. Perhaps that's just because I'm the snooty child of a college Professor.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Something is off about this article to me, but it is not the kid. To me, Billy sounds like the typical bullied kid- once you're a target, you're a target and it's tough to undo that, even if you switch schools.
No, what's off for me is this:
quote:The many incidents seem to blur together into one protracted assault. When Billy attaches a bully’s name to one beating, his mother corrects him. “That was Benny, sweetie,” she says. “That was in the eighth grade.”
quote:They have binders of school records and police reports, along with photos documenting the bruises and black eyes.
His mother knows better than him who beat him up, and when? His mother keeps books of who bullied her son like another mother keeps records of his achievements? She (apparently) publicizes his bullying? They refuse to leave the school district? Without knowing the individuals involved it's tough to judge, but sounds to me like the mother (and possibly the father, too, but he is less in the article) gets a lot of attention from her son's troubles.
How will their child ever escape from this never ending and mental physical violence if his own parents emphasize his failures so utterly?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Without knowing the individuals involved it's tough to judge, but sounds to me like the mother (and possibly the father, too, but he is less in the article) gets a lot of attention from her son's troubles.
Like a Munchausen syndrome by proxy? Scary thought.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Indeed.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Like a Munchausen syndrome by proxy? Scary thought.
It certainly crossed my mind, but like I said, it's very very hard to make correct assessments of the situation without being there.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Of course. Now that you've pointed it out, I see where you get that impression, but of course we can't know.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I had thought the same thing. But it would be very difficult to say what they should be doing differently-- I mean, it's hard to fault them for advocating for their son when the schools seem to not care.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
True.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I'm not so sure why people are so upset with Pix. I thought her comments, all the way through, were clearly jocular.
And I also think there's a useful distinction (discussion-wise) to the stereotypes. There is a reason why Nebraska has a consistently top rated football team with a big power running game and why Cal-Berkley generally doesn't find its way into the AP top 25. Obviously there are exceptions, but if I'm building an offensive line (or picking who's gonna be on my side in a fight) and all I know is "son of a farmer" versus "son of an academic", give me the farmers.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't think they were jocular and I don't think she was kidding.
I also think she was unfair, both to the people of Arkansas and to the children of college professors.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Clearly several people agree with you, Kat.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:And I also think there's a useful distinction (discussion-wise) to the stereotypes. There is a reason why Nebraska has a consistently top rated football team with a big power running game and why Cal-Berkley generally doesn't find its way into the AP top 25. Obviously there are exceptions, but if I'm building an offensive line (or picking who's gonna be on my side in a fight) and all I know is "son of a farmer" versus "son of an academic", give me the farmers.
Are we okay with using the reverse stereotype? To wit, if I have a problem that requires a great deal of complex thinking, give me the son of an academic versus the son of a farmer?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Are we okay with using the reverse stereotype? To wit, if I have a problem that requires a great deal of complex thinking, give me the son of an academic versus the son of a farmer?
Again, if that's *all* I know about them? Yes, though I would probably prefer to replace "complex thinking" with something else...
For whatever it may be worth, it's about environment, not heredity, for me. The son of a farmer is more likely to have done significant manual labor than the son of the academic. Conversely, the son of the academic has likely had greater emphasis placed on education and other intellectual pursuits.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Jim: Thank you for standing up for me. I *really* appriciate it.
But they've decided what I was trying to say and further clarification is useless at this point.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
So you were just trying to make a joke, Pix? You don't believe that college professors are snooty?
---
Jim, Fair enough. How realistic is it that you only know what someone's parents did? You seem to be treating this as a real possibility, where it doesn't seem that way to me.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
No, I don't see it as realistic at all. In fact I typed something to that effect but decided my reply was getting needlessly long and involved because I started two whole other tangents off of that. I'm trying to work on not rambling.
At any rate, all I wanted to do was say that I thought the response to pix's initial post was disproportionate. It is not a crime, or necessesarily even a bad idea, to disagree with me. Many right honorable and upright persons do.
[ March 26, 2008, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: I'm not so sure why people are so upset with Pix. I thought her comments, all the way through, were clearly jocular.
I suspect that you find if funny because you aren't either a farmer's son or the child of a professor.
Would you be upset if she had said "ignorant, self-righteous kids of Christians"?
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:At any rate, all I wanted to do was say that I thought the response to pix's initial post was disproportionate.
My initial response was probably a little disproportionate, since it's rather an extreme sore spot for me -- being the child of two college professors. However, I do not think, given the following exchange that further responses were disproportionate. She never suggested that she was merely joking and on multiple occasions suggested that she was, in fact, completely serious. She refused to admit that her statement could be offensive and has refused to apologize in the event that it offended -- which it clearly did, not just me but several people.
Personally the whole thing would have been pretty much completely defused for me with a simple "Sorry I offended, it was just a joke." Or even just a "I see how it could be offensive, none was intended." Instead we got: "If you want to continue to take offense, knock yourself out. I'll be busy with the rednecks I offended with this post."
I'm still willing to listen to further clarification Pix, as long as it contains a recognition that that statement could offend, has offended and an apology for that offense. I don't think that's a whole lot to ask for.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: But they've decided what I was trying to say and further clarification is useless at this point.
Pix, Saying that you didn't mean kids of professors were rich, you meant they were snooty doesn't exactly ameliorate the original statement.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Would you be upset if she had said "ignorant, self-righteous kids of Christians"?
Yep, and I might have even responded disproportionately if I was tired, already angry, or otherwise overly sensitive to it. Most days I'd probably ignore it or simply say something mild.
And I'd like to point out the difference in tone between "namby-pamby" or "merlot over cheerios" and "ignorant" or "self-righteous".
Edit: Alcon, I'll grant you there was some snark in that response, but even so, pretty mild, I thought. No worries, though. I'm certainly not angered or offended at this point, and was neither expecting nor seeking any sort of apology from anyone.
And with that, I'm gonna drop it, because this has already become a bigger deal than I intended.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:And I'd like to point out the difference in tone between "namby-pamby" or "merlot over cheerios" and "ignorant" or "self-righteous".
What about "snooty" or did you not bother to read Pixiest clarification of her original post?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
*sigh*
ok one last one...
Yes, snooty is more offensive, but in my opinion more accurate, too. I've certainly observed a dramatic (slight pun intended) correlation between education level and tendency to pretense. Of course that may largely be because *I* tend to pretense when my discourse becomes more scholarly. But I'm far from the only one, and in fact, some people try to emulate scholars entirely by using pretentious language.... and they often think they succeed. No one tries to emulate a farmer by using big words.
I have no doubt that there is more pretense among faculty than among farmers.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
So, it's acceptible to you because you share the prejudice?
edit: It seemed to me like you were saying "Come on guys, she was just kidding." but now it looks like you think that people were overreacting to Pix's more or less accurate statements.
[ March 26, 2008, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I have no doubt that there is more pretense among faculty than among farmers.
It's the exact opposite. Those who have the knowledge and training at great cost (time, money) do not fall over themselves trying to impress people - they don't have anything to prove. In other words, when someone is pretending, it means they don't have the real thing.
When you have the real thing, you couldn't hide it if you wanted to. It will come out naturally.
Since "farmers" (this is in quotes because I don't believe this is a fair characterization of farmers) are certainly aware of the status and cache of a dandy education but are often not in possession of it, they are much more likely to bluster out a rodomontade of pretentious baloney than someone who is legitimately in possession of that kind of knowledge.
It is those who don't actually belong to an aspirational caste that are desperate to dress themselves with the feathers of it.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: It is those who don't actually belong to an aspirational caste that are desperate to dress themselves with the feathers of it.
I would ammend that to read "It is those who don't actually belong to an aspirational caste or who feel insecure in their place within that caste that are desperate to dress themselves with the feathers of it."
That makes the sentence a little clunky, though, which is a shame--the phrasing in the original version is beautiful.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I can vouch for the fact that some professors do feel the need to put on airs. This is rare, though with the real "stars".
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Yes, snooty is more offensive, but in my opinion more accurate, too.
More accurate than what? The stereotype that Christians are self-righteous?
In my experience (and I am both a Chrisitian and the child of a college professor), the stereotype that Christians are self-righteous has far broader validity than the stereo-type that children of professors are snooty.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I'm pretty darn snooty, and I'm fine with that. It's the Merlot part I'm having issues with -- clearly Cheerios should be accompanied by a white wine.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I can vouch for the fact that some professors do feel the need to put on airs. This is rare, though with the real "stars".
I know a lot of professor who are genuine and impressively arrogant, I can't think of any who put on airs. There is a difference.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I can think of many who are less impressive, but try very hard to impress.
I know the difference.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
We had an English prof (of American nationality) once who my friend described on the evaluation form was so pretentious that she farted with an English accent. She was also pretty insecure. She actually resorted to "You need to accept what I say is correct because I have a PhD!" when I and another friend disagreed with her interpretation of something and backed our interpretation with outside sources (many of whom also had PhDs).
I've never had a prof I respected who put on airs though.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Not all but many of the ones I am thinking of (right now) have been tenured a long time and haven't published in a while. Also they became professors when there was a sharper status difference between professors and everybody else.
You also get a handful in the "softer" disciplines, I think.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
One quick glance around the internet produces dozens and dozens of people who don't know what they are talking about trying VERY hard to impress.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
There was a guy who lived in the same tiny little town that I grew up in (I'm not sure how many people actually lived there at the time, but less than 200, I'd guess. The town was about a half hour away from the larger town that I usually tell people I'm from) who was referred to as "PhD Laird" by pretty much everbody in town, because it was virtually impossible to have a conversation with him for more than a few minutes without his mentioning that he had a PhD. When I was a kid I thought it was funny, but these days it just seems kind of pathetic.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
It's impossible to make an accurate assessment at this time as to whether or not children of professors are snooty, but I think we have seen some evidence that they're fairly sensitive and easy to rile up Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
I think your offense tells us a lot more about you than Pixiest's comments tells us about her.
She (presumably a 'she') was making a comment within a context and using 'stereotypes' to ILLUSTRATE her point. It is very common to overstate a point to make it, we all do it all the time, and most often with an underlying intent at humor. This exaggeration lifts our point out of the morass and makes it more visible. It is a common conversational technique. If you can't tell the difference between an 'example' and an 'illustration', then perhaps a few more years education is in order. Yes, I can see the potential for offense in it, but I see the humorous stereotypical illustration in the context of the discussion far more.
What we are seeing is one of the greatest and most common flaws in Internet communication. It is for someone to be come incensed by some small part of a statement while completely ignoring the statement itself.
This happens to me all the time in discussions, my point is completely ignore while a meaningless turn-of-a-phrase is picked apart for days.
Stereotypes are real, but only as generalization. They will always fall apart when dealing with specifics or individuals, but they are none-the-less true and valid.
For the record, I'm a white-trash, trailer-trash, small town country boy with a Bachelor of Science degree who at one time worked for a supercomputer company; oh yes, and an ex-hippie too. You figure it out. Farmer are stupid, except the one who are smart. Academics are snooty, except the one who aren't. Sailors are drunken hell-raising kids, except the ones who aren't. Cowboys are drunken rednecks who never said anything more intelligent that "Yeeee Haaaaaa!", except for the ones who aren't. All statement true, and yet, all statements false.
What I say is - lighten up.
Sniping at each other does not advance the discussion.
I find school bullying, and irresponsible and unresponsive school administrations A LOT more infuriating then whether some one was offended by the use of a stereotype in an illustration.
Steve/bluewizard
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: Sniping at each other does not advance the discussion.
On the contrary, without the sniping we'd probably still be on page 1 of this thread.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Posted by Professor Farnsworth (Member # 5728) on :
Wha?
I'm not snooty, I'm just old.
I have a right to be exclusive! Damn you Wormstrom!
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"The town was about a half hour away from the larger town that I usually tell people I'm from."
Most people haven't heard of the town I SAY I'm from, either, never mind the "town" I'm actually from. There's got to be a Jeff Foxworthy joke in there, somewhere.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I'm just using it as an example of how what you said was insulting.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)