"Junk" in the high school boys locker room

[Katy]

I think that although this isn't a healthy situation, it's a common situation.  Really so common as to be considered normal.  Not that it should be normal.  I think this is the kind of thing that can easily lead to abuse, but it's also the kind of thing boys aren't likely to complain about, so as to not become a target. This is probably the reason boys are less likely to report abuse than girls.

 

I think this sort of situation used to be really common, but women coming into every area of life object to this sort of behavior more frequently, so it has dissipated except in areas women aren't allowed, like locker rooms and frat houses.

 

However, unless it did cross that line into abuse, I don't think I would do anything about it, except encourage DS to feel free to confront, complain, or quit the activity if he wanted to. We don't usually allow quitting anything until the end of the season.

 

edited because distracted earlier

Edited May 10, 2016 by Katy

[HRAAB]

I think that although this isn't a healthy situation, it's a common situation.  Really so common as to be considered normal.  Not that it should be normal.  I think this is the kind of thing that can easily lead to abuse, but it's also the kind of thing boys aren't likely to complain about, so as to not become a target. This is probably the reason boys are less likely to report abuse than boys.

 

I think this sort of situation used to be really common, but women coming into every area of life object to this sort of behavior more frequently, so it has dissipated except in areas women aren't allowed, like locker rooms and frat houses.

 

However, unless it did cross that line into abuse, I don't think I would do anything about it, except encourage DS to feel free to confront, complain, or quit the activity if he wanted to. We don't usually allow quitting anything until the end of the season.

 

So, educate this mother of only girls.  Does this behavior really not bother most guys?  I was just talking to my dh about this thread, and he was appalled by it.  He's a man; he played sports in high school; he spent time in locker rooms.  He said there was definitely language, and there were certain guys that talked about the girls, but that's where it ended.  

 

Should this behavior be ignored?  Is this just a matter of women having their sensibilities offended?

 

eta:  dh was disgusted by the behavior.  He was appalled the coaches weren't doing anything about it.

Edited May 9, 2016 by Ishki

[Murphy101]

My husband played sports in school too and several of my older boys (teens and twenties) have gym memberships they frequent at least every other day. One son has several of his young 20 something buddies over for dinner tonight.

 

All of them think this is not acceptable or normal and should be stopped pronto.

 

They all express that with the exception of the occasional towel snap or bad joke, they think this is way beyond what they would have felt comfortable with.

Edited May 9, 2016 by Murphy101

[bolt.]

I am honestly shocked by your statement. So the fact that the women aren't hearing it makes it okay? Any less of an insult to dignity?

 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

 

And, I totally disagree that just because something "appears" consensual it is okay. This is not the appropriate environment for that kind of behavior whether consensual or not (and I am doubting that it really is consensual for all parties.)

Not really. I think I'm not communicating well:

 

One part is this:

 

The fact that the woman that the talk is about is not present means that it does not legitimately fit the definition of "sexual harassment" -- which means it's something else. If it's something else, it needs to be solved as what it is, because solutions for sexual harassment won't fit, and solutions for what it actually is will fit. But I can't find the right words for what it actually is.

 

Yes, I definitely think that young men alone making rapey jokes about what they'd like to plan do to women is *very much* less of an 'affront' than, say, one young man speaking directly to a young woman about what he hopes to do to her. The first shows the bad character of the boys. The second is a threat, and in many jurisdictions a criminal act. Anyone can see that it matters whether the talk is directed at the intended victim (or intended for her hearing) or if it is general grandstanding. Neither is good, but they are different in a meaningful way IMO.

 

I think it's definitely misogyny, and definitely wrong, but I'm trying to find out if it's actually against a rule that exists. If it was happening at a bus stop, it wouldn't be a crime to make rude jokes and climb on each other: so anything else that defines the behaviour must be specific to the environment it's happening in. Who is actually responsible in the setting? What are the actual, existing, limits?

 

The other part of it is this:

 

However as a young teen, when big teens are doing wrong things, there are very few available strategies. One of them is "I don't care who acts like that, I'm not going to." -- I don't think a teen barely out of boyhood is complicit if he merely leaves nearly-adults to their own business in his presence.

 

The appearance of consent between the older boys is an unfortunate limitation on the capacity of the OP's son to do anything effective -- even if it's not true that all the participating boys are having fun, how can he even report the incident as bullying if they all gave the apperance of willing participation? How can the bully be held to any account if the other participants gave him no reason to believe they objected?

 

I'm saying that it makes the situation complicated (nearly to the point of unsolvability) for a 9th grader: not that it makes it ok.

 

It leaves him with very little to stand on other than "I don't like seeing that because it's overt and sexual and weird." (Which actually is the main part of the original complaint.) But to take sensible action, it needs to be teased apart: the key question is, 'other than it being overt, sexual and weird (which it is) what actual transgressions of actual policies have been observed, and what can be done?'

[TwoEdgedSword]

If being twerked on from behind or mounted is non-consensual, it's a battery in about 50 states.

The problem is the going along with it...while it may appear to be consensual, it could actually be just fear of worse reprisals for speaking out against it.

[Murphy101]

It's amazing how if the exact same thing happened at work or the ymca or public pool or church camp, no one would think this needed discussion.

 

They'd call the cops or someone would be fired/expelled or whatever.

 

But the minute it happens in a public school - oh well that's different.

 

Except it's not.

[HRAAB]

My husband played sports in school too and several of my older boys (teens and twenties) have gym memberships they frequent at least every other day. One son has several of his young 20 something buddies over for dinner tonight.

 

All of them think this is not acceptable or normal and should be stopped pronto.

 

They all express that with the exception of the occasional towel snap or bad joke, they think this is way beyond what they would have felt comfortable with.

 

Thanks.  I'm feeling more relieved.

[Haiku]

Dignity for women is wonderful, but your son does not have the social position or power to defend the honour of every female from every rape "joke". He should keep an eye out for anything that *substsntially* indicates the intent of any boy to commit a crime. In situations where he has social influence, he should use it as his conscience dictates: to squash rapey idiocy.

 

Um, what?

 

So it's fine for boys to mock and degrade women as long as they don't declare criminal intentions?

 

Yikes.

[Bluegoat]

I think that although this isn't a healthy situation, it's a common situation.  Really so common as to be considered normal.  Not that it should be normal.  I think this is the kind of thing that can easily lead to abuse, but it's also the kind of thing boys aren't likely to complain about, so as to not become a target. This is probably the reason boys are less likely to report abuse than boys.

 

I think this sort of situation used to be really common, but women coming into every area of life object to this sort of behavior more frequently, so it has dissipated except in areas women aren't allowed, like locker rooms and frat houses.

 

However, unless it did cross that line into abuse, I don't think I would do anything about it, except encourage DS to feel free to confront, complain, or quit the activity if he wanted to. We don't usually allow quitting anything until the end of the season.

 

I think it often only takes a few, even one, person to set the tone with groups like this.  Others find it funny, or want to fit in, or whatever, and eventually it becomes a regular part of the persona of the group.

 

It can be hard to tell if some people aren't comfortable and are just going along with it, and I think realistically there is not always going to be a way to solve that.  Even if there are clear rules and ome supervision, there will always be some groups of kids who push the limits.  One hopes that kids who feel uncomfortable will learn to speak up or opt out in those cases, but often it can take years for people to realize that is the best way to deal with those stuations.

 

I guess, to some extent, it is a bit of a learning curve for kids to see how to manage group social situations.

 

FWIW I think girls groups can have very similar negative dynamics.  The content might be different in many cases, but the situation is similar n terms of group interactions.

[Bluegoat]

If being twerked on from behind or mounted is non-consensual, it's a battery in about 50 states.

The problem is the going along with it...while it may appear to be consensual, it could actually be just fear of worse reprisals for speaking out against it.

 

Or - just fear of being thought to be a prude or not one of the guys.  Which is really hard to stamp out.  It might not even be true that it would be the result.

[MegP]

So is there no supervision by the coaches in high school locker rooms?

[Bluegoat]

It's amazing how if the exact same thing happened at work or the ymca or public pool or church camp, no one would think this needed discussion.

 

They'd call the cops or someone would be fired/expelled or whatever.

 

But the minute it happens in a public school - oh well that's different.

 

Except it's not.

 

I would say it was pretty much the same, actually.  Ideally if adults know about it, they need to put the kybosh on it, and I don't quite see whay that hasn't happened so I can't say more about it.  But I can't see expelling kids from camp or the YMCA or school until they have all been told to cut it out, and I can't see how they could be considered ciminal if the evidence only points to them horsing around together rather than bullying or anything like that.

[TwoEdgedSword]

It's amazing how if the exact same thing happened at work or the ymca or public pool or church camp, no one would think this needed discussion.

 

They'd call the cops or someone would be fired/expelled or whatever.

 

But the minute it happens in a public school - oh well that's different.

 

Except it's not.

Exactly.

[Katy]

I'm flashing back to a moment in high school where I was being harrassed in full view of a teacher who perhaps wasn't fully aware of the extent of the situation.  I turned to the ringleader and calmly but loudly said, "If you or any of your friends grabs my ass again, I will punch you."  I thought I might get in trouble for swearing, but instead the teacher just reiterated for them to stop. Those boys did stop bothering me, but it was in their basic personality to keep bothering others.

 

I wonder if it would slow or stop if your DS calmly but authoritatively shook his head no and said something to the effect of, "Dude, you ever pull that shit on me, I'll punch you."

 

 

[Farrar]

I guess... in the absence of a coach or authorized adult talking to them and getting them to cut it out... I'm not surprised this is the culture in this locker room. I mean, a few boys think it's funny or cool, they push the boundaries, no one says anything, and fast forward a few months and this is the atmosphere. Which is why there should be a coach in there checking in, making them stop. I don't think kids can or should be watched every second, but if this is really a nonstop culture, then I'm really surprised no one has stepped in.

 

But, at the same time, I don't think these kids sound horrible exactly. I mean, teenagers talk about s*x and brag about s*x and tease each other about their experiences and that's been going on time immemorial. A lot of teens have s*x. That's just a fact. And they're new to it all and trying to figure it all out. This is not a particularly healthy way to do it... and the negative, predatory talk about girls is bad. But... it's also talk, not action. I dunno... it's bad. I'm trying to work out how I feel about it. I don't think it's as clear cut as some people are making out that they should be suspended or something automatically. This isn't a workplace or a public declaration. If some kid says to a friend, "Gee, I really want to have s*x with Mary," then I don't consider that harassment. If a kid says to a friend, "I really want to [fill in crude and explicit language here] Mary," that's, well, oy, but I'm still not sure it's harassment. If he says it to her or to her friends or in a public declaration, okay, then we start to cross into harassment. But is the locker room with friends after practice a public space? Not exactly. Sort of. It's not sure clear. And I'll bet it's not clear to them either. Honestly, more than anything, I'd rather see them get a lesson in how to treat and talk about women respectfully.

 

And... assuming all this faux humping and so forth is consensual, then... I'm not sure how it's a "lawsuit waiting to happen" or an incident worthy of the police in another context. I mean, if you overhear two guys on the street talking smack about women they want to get with, being lewd, and slapping each other's rear ends, would you call the cops? For real? I mean, the locker room adds another element, but still. It's rude and not good, but I wouldn't call the police. I'd walk away. And - again, assuming no one gets touched who's not in on this culture - who's going to sue? I mean, I'm not defending that they should be able to do it. There are all kinds of behaviors that schools should absolutely clamp down on that are also not police or lawsuit worthy. And, of course, it could easily cross a line... and then it would be an even bigger problem. Which is why a coach should be in there making them stop.

[TwoEdgedSword]

I think the implication by others was that if the non-consensual twerking or faux humping became something more egregious. Then it would be lawsuit time. And the environment is potentially conducive to more happening with no one stepping in.

Edited May 10, 2016 by TwoEdgedSword

[Murphy101]

But the difference is - I can just leave the street at any time.

 

The rules for work and school are far stricter and less tolerant bc the person can't just leave. They have to be there.

 

It's called creating a hostile environment for a reason. And it's grounds for legal action even without sexual hareasment/contact.

 

Because as you note - coaches and staff that do nothing are contributing to that hostile environment and silently endorsing it as acceptable. If they are doing even a cursory job of supervising those boys - this wouldn't be an issue more than once. Because as you note, the boys wouldn't have grown so comfortable.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Murphy101

[Farrar]

Just because it's wrong doesn't mean you can call the police. If someone called the cops on these boys, I'd be more upset with that person than with the teenagers. The rules for school are stricter... but they're still kids. Again, I'm not condoning this. I just don't feel angry at the boys, I guess. I would direct my anger to the coaches who aren't regulating behavior on school grounds. And I would see it as an opportunity to do some sex ed and consent ed with them. Which, ugh, stupid anti-sex ed in school nonsense, which, honestly, I'll direct my anger there too.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Just because it's wrong doesn't mean you can call the police. If someone called the cops on these boys, I'd be more upset with that person than with the teenagers. The rules for school are stricter... but they're still kids. Again, I'm not condoning this. I just don't feel angry at the boys, I guess. I would direct my anger to the coaches who aren't regulating behavior on school grounds. And I would see it as an opportunity to do some sex ed and consent ed with them. Which, ugh, stupid anti-sex ed in school nonsense, which, honestly, I'll direct my anger there too.

 

You are correct on all points.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

It's amazing how if the exact same thing happened at work or the ymca or public pool or church camp, no one would think this needed discussion.

 

They'd call the cops or someone would be fired/expelled or whatever.

 

But the minute it happens in a public school - oh well that's different.

 

Except it's not.

 

I doubt the cops would be called over teens acting up in a locker room at a public pool or a YMCA, unless someone actually reported they were being assaulted. 

[Murphy101]

Meh. I don't think this is bc of lack of or from having sex ed.

 

This falls under the Foreman/Goldberg general rule of thumb:

 

Don't be a dumbass/moron.

 

Teenagers shouldn't need a class on how it's not appropriate to go about simulating sex acts against other students at school, locker room or not.

 

By all means a coach should have told them to shut up and quit talking like jerks months ago and should be paying attention to what's going on in the lockers and showers. If so, it would have likely prevented an escalation to this mess.

 

They are not kids. We're not talking 10 year olds that think fart jokes are funny.

[Murphy101]

I doubt the cops would be called over teens acting up in a locker room at a public pool or a YMCA, unless someone actually reported they were being assaulted.

Note I also said "or fired/expelled or whatever".

 

I would suspect it would depend on the situation which of my "or" options would apply.

[Farrar]

The reason I bring up sex ed is that when teens aren't given a healthy space to talk about sex in an explicit and clear way, they find unhealthy spaces to do it. And when ways of talking in a healthy fashion about sex aren't modeled for teens, they find unhealthy ways to talk about sex. And when consent is not explicitly taught and discussed, then teens don't understand where the line is between expressing desires and crossing the line to harassment.

 

With what might be a small number of exceptions, these are minors. Of course they're kids. This is the whole point of having schools and minors in the first place. So that there's time for kids to slowly grow up, with support as they figure this stuff out. Arrest these kids for sexual harassment or whatever and just throw the book at them and you're turning what is currently just unhealthy behavior of young people who need better guidance and boundaries into a pathology. You're turning them into criminals. I don't buy that that's a good way to deal with this.

[Murphy101]

The reason I bring up sex ed is that when teens aren't given a healthy space to talk about sex in an explicit and clear way, they find unhealthy spaces to do it. And when ways of talking in a healthy fashion about sex aren't modeled for teens, they find unhealthy ways to talk about sex. And when consent is not explicitly taught and discussed, then teens don't understand where the line is between expressing desires and crossing the line to harassment.

 

With what might be a small number of exceptions, these are minors. Of course they're kids. This is the whole point of having schools and minors in the first place. So that there's time for kids to slowly grow up, with support as they figure this stuff out. Arrest these kids for sexual harassment or whatever and just throw the book at them and you're turning what is currently just unhealthy behavior of young people who need better guidance and boundaries into a pathology. You're turning them into criminals. I don't buy that that's a good way to deal with this.

I'm not turning them into criminals - not yet anyways.

 

As for the rest of your post - well we disagree.

 

I'm confident no guy accidently raped or assaulted a gal bc he just didn't understand the concept of consent or was confused bc he didn't get to have an explicit conversation about it first. I think that's total rubbish excuse making for offenders.

 

The purpose of these classes is to make it clear that the establishment will no longer tolerate it - which is good for victims to know, but I don't know that I agree it necessarily stops bullies and harassers from being bullies and harassers.

[TwoEdgedSword]

They've had the classes.

[SparklyUnicorn]

So is there no supervision by the coaches in high school locker rooms?

 

Probably not, but oh boy can I imagine how some people might interpret that.

[Murphy101]

Probably not, but oh boy can I imagine how some people might interpret that.

Yes. I get that. But it's part of the job. And as long as he isn't alone with anyone it shouldn't be a problem. Especially if he can have an asst coach in there too. It's not perfect, but it beats lord of the flies.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Murphy101

[ChocolateReignRemix]

This is probably very true now......but I'm guessing that the Federal Government's new lawsuit over bathroom and locker room politics and Title IX threats that anyone may use any bathroom or locker room as suits them, is going to stir up a whole huge pot of this. Now it's no longer going to be classified as merely "acting up"- it's going to be viewed as intimidation, harassment, or discrimination and dealt with severly as schools seem to fall to one extreme or the other. Talk crudely about women and it's a time honored tradition, talk crudely about someone who identifies as LBGTXYZ in a public school setting and you're going to set yourself up to be expelled in the coming years. It's like when zero tolerance came in for fights at school. Kids used to get in a fight and get sent to the principal's office. By my senior year of high school if you got in a fight you were arrested and had to be arraigned and bailed out for assault. Things seem to spiral into seriousness far faster than kids or parents can keep up with, and it would behoove all involved if some guidelines of how to act where in place. Times have changed. Someone needs to clue the boys in on that. 

Doubtful. The "government lawsuit" you reference will have almost no impact on high school locker rooms.

 

The bolded is offensive and disgusting.

 

[Joker]

. 

 

Edited May 10, 2016 by Joker

[Murphy101]

Doubtful. The "government lawsuit" you reference will have almost no impact on high school locker rooms.

 

The bolded is offensive and disgusting.

What does XYZ mean?

 

I don't know so I can't agree or not whether it is offensive or disgusting.

 

Wait... Shouldn't there be a Q in there somewhere?

 

I admit, the list is getting a bit long to keep track of.

 

Gay

Lesbian

Bisexual

Transgender

Queer - I admit to having no idea what that means if it isn't already one of the first four.

 

I would presume, a dangerous endeavor on WTM I know, that XYZ just means whatever in addition to those, but I don't understand why that's offensive or disgusting.

 

And I suppose it doesn't matter.

 

Where people pee and why they chose that spot is not really on topic regardless.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The Title IX fund withholding is absolutely impacting locker rooms- The US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit has accepted the US Department of Education's stance that Title IX funding can be denied due to discrimination in a case in Virginia. And as last time I checked, locker rooms include bathrooms. I'm not sure why a bathroom and a locker room would be viewed differently on something like this.......

 

As for the LGBTXYZ, I apologize for any perceived offense. I will edit the post. The last time I checked the current typing of this has multiple variations (LGBTQUIA, LGBTQPAA, etc.) and it changes quite often. I work with friends and associates in the activist community use this terminology themselves, so I didn't forsee it as being offensive.

 

 

The bolded is true.  However, it only has a passing relationship to what was in your previous post.

 

You will have to forgive me, but adding in "XYZ" does not seem like an innocent mistake.

[Murphy101]

The bolded is true. However, it only has a passing relationship to what was in your previous post.

 

You will have to forgive me, but adding in "XYZ" does not seem like an innocent mistake.

I still have no idea what's insulting about it. *confused*

[Murphy101]

The Title IX fund withholding is absolutely impacting locker rooms- The US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit has accepted the US Department of Education's stance that Title IX funding can be denied due to discrimination in a case in Virginia. And as last time I checked, locker rooms include bathrooms. I'm not sure why a bathroom and a locker room would be viewed differently on something like this.......

 

As for the LGBTXYZ, I apologize for any perceived offense. I will edit the post. The last time I checked the current typing of this has multiple variations (LGBTQUIA, LGBTQPAA, etc.) and it changes quite often. I work with friends and associates in the activist community use this terminology themselves, so I didn't forsee it as being offensive.

Oh good grief... That's a mess of letters to manage.

 

And I'm not any more enlightened than if you'd just used -XYZ.

 

I have no idea what in the world QUIA or QPAA might mean.

[Katy]

I'm not surprised at all about lack of locker room supervision.  It's not like funding for gym teachers has improved in the last 20 years.  Administrators, maybe but not gym.  So not only do coaches have to be careful about not appearing to stare at less than fully clothed adolescents, changing time is also frequently the only chance they get to talk to kids about various excuses, illnesses, and adaptations, it's also paperwork, grading, and equipment maintenance time.

 

My guess?  At some point a horrific crime will take place in a locker room, and rather than take an insurance company payout for hush money, a child's family will make an example and make an assault public and take it to trial to try to force more supervision in locker rooms.  Then there will be three similar lawsuits, and then it will become a best practice to make sure kids are never alone, anywhere.

[Laurie]

 

 

My guess?  At some point a horrific crime will take place in a locker room, and rather than take an insurance company payout for hush money, a child's family will make an example and make an assault public and take it to trial to try to force more supervision in locker rooms.  Then there will be three similar lawsuits, and then it will become a best practice to make sure kids are never alone, anywhere.

 

Here's an example:  http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/eastside/judge-assault-with-broomstick-part-of-football-hazing-culture-at-juanita-high/

 

The quote from the judge at the end of the article makes sense to me.   

[Murphy101]

Here's an example: http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/eastside/judge-assault-with-broomstick-part-of-football-hazing-culture-at-juanita-high/

 

The quote from the judge at the end of the article makes sense to me.

Wow. So many epithets while reading that and the just dumb excuses of the staff and the parents over and over even after the ruling of guilty.

 

and the parents? Oh their poor boy is being called a rapist and being ostracized and they have all these legal bills. That's what someone who gangs up with four other guys to hold someone down and sodomized them by instrumentation is - a rapist and yeah people don't like rapists. And oh they were buddies just having a prank on a mentally challenged kid that went too far bc just before that they were joking and tossing ice at each other. Just what the hell is going on with these sick idiots? Were all the staff and parents educated in the same schools as the kids - bc for the love of - shut the school down before they "educate" anyone else.

 

Just..

 

All I have is more epithets.

[Tsuga]

That sounds beyond your normal boundary-pushing. It's veering into sexual harassment indeed. In my HS there was a lot of bullcrap that went on but they drew the line at sexual harassment. (Probably should have drawn the line before that...)

 

Homo-eroticism is not a problem with me EXCEPT when in the locker room where people do not need to see other people acting out their fantasies naked. No thanks.

 

If I were you, I would focus more on "eroticism" and sexual harassment and leave out your personal issues with homosexual overtones. It's unnecessary, it distorts the real problem, and it sets you up to be dismissed as well.

 

Good luck OP. :( Sorry your son is facing that.

[Tsuga]

Re-reading my post... not "probably should have" but should have drawn the line before sexual harassment. Of course.

[Bluegoat]

Meh. I don't think this is bc of lack of or from having sex ed.

 

This falls under the Foreman/Goldberg general rule of thumb:

 

Don't be a dumbass/moron.

 

Teenagers shouldn't need a class on how it's not appropriate to go about simulating sex acts against other students at school, locker room or not.

 

By all means a coach should have told them to shut up and quit talking like jerks months ago and should be paying attention to what's going on in the lockers and showers. If so, it would have likely prevented an escalation to this mess.

 

They are not kids. We're not talking 10 year olds that think fart jokes are funny.

 

I think a lot of high school boys think fart jokes are funny.

 

There was a fart joke on GoT this past week, which makes me think a lot of adults think they are funny.

[bolt.]

Um, what?

 

So it's fine for boys to mock and degrade women as long as they don't declare criminal intentions?

 

Yikes.

No. It's not fine. It's evil, terrible, and wrong.

 

It's also (unless they declare criminal intentions) well beyond what a 3-year-younger bystander without in-group status could possibly respond to in any meaningful way. Right now, they haven't done anything to him, or to anyone who gave a bystander a tangible reason to believe they objected.

 

That's me explaining why it's a stickier problem than something more cut-and-dry would be. It's me identifying the reasons a 3-year-younger uninvolved bystander hasn't got a lot of options. It's not me saying that I think it's ok.

 

If they declare criminal intentions he can do something.

 

If they don't, all he can do is decide that he won't be that kind of kid, and resolve what to do in situations where he will/does have some influence.

 

---

 

Whoever said it's like 'creating a toxic work environment' has found a good place to start... That's what it's called in the workplave world. I knew there had to be something.

 

Whoever said you can call the police if it's happening at the YMCA must have different laws: I don't see which one is being broken.

 

Yes, a private business can kick them out for being unpleasant hooligans, but a school needs something more clear (a policy, a code of conduct) to operate from. This needs research as-to the actual school policies.

 

I don't think adults should be supervising nude teens on a regular basis. It's not the norm here (as I recall) to have coaches in change rooms.

[Haiku]

It wasn't a mistake. It is used frequently by the local HIV research fundraising board I work with BY people who identify as such. They do not find it offensive.

I agree. I have seen this used in communications and publications marketed toward those in the sexual minority community. Lots of my friends in the LGBT community use it because the letter string keeps getting longer and changing, so the XYZ means "and all the rest" (or "n'at," as my Pittsburgh friends say). It is not meant to marginalize or disavow anyone.

[Haiku]

all he can do is decide that he won't be that kind of kid

 

I guess we just disagree, as I don't see that as "all he can do," not by a long shot.

[bolt.]

I guess we just disagree, as I don't see that as "all he can do," not by a long shot.

I guess I'm better at helping discern the difficulties of problems than having great ideas. I hope you manage to help the OP with your ideas.

[Haiku]

I guess I'm better at helping discern the difficulties of problems than having great ideas. I hope you manage to help the OP with your ideas.

 

I don't think it's all that difficult of a problem. Crude language and behavior are making some boys uncomfortable. (And I am unclear whether the OP's son is actually involved; she said it "would not be ok" with her son. That leads me to believe he is not actually involved in this situation.) There are established channels for dealing with bothersome behavior (unless this school is some Lord of the Flies type), and this is a prime example of when they should be followed.

 

Additionally, excusing lack of action by pointing out all the reasons why action would be uncomfortable flirts dangerously close, imo, to acquiescence. I don't think we should be teaching our sons, "You should speak up if you have social capital, but if you don't, the best course is to keep your head down." That merely perpetuates the problem and teaches kids to be disempowered.

 

My son stood up to his entire hockey team when they were playing racist music in the locker room. He was the only new kid on the team, and the youngest, and it was uncomfortable for him. The captain either didn't understand or (more likely) pretended not to understand what the problem was, but my son didn't back down, and now there is a clear locker room music policy. My son endured some "wet blanket, goody two-shoes" ribbing, but in the end people respected him for standing up for his values.

Edited May 10, 2016 by TaraTheLiberator

[TwoEdgedSword]

Exactly Tara. Say goodbye to all heros and folks who do the right thing if they need to examine their social index before standing up.

[TranquilMind]

OP, when my son played, they were only 13 and under, and I was pretty shocked at what some of the boys were doing and saying, as well as at the porn they were bringing in on their phones (well off kids who could afford this at the time).    I can only imagine in the older age groups.  This is not ok, and they need to have direct, mindful supervision at all times.  Unfortunately, they don't understand this. 

[TranquilMind]

So, educate this mother of only girls.  Does this behavior really not bother most guys?  I was just talking to my dh about this thread, and he was appalled by it.  He's a man; he played sports in high school; he spent time in locker rooms.  He said there was definitely language, and there were certain guys that talked about the girls, but that's where it ended.  

 

Should this behavior be ignored?  Is this just a matter of women having their sensibilities offended?

 

eta:  dh was disgusted by the behavior.  He was appalled the coaches weren't doing anything about it.

 

In your husband's day - and my husband's day - it wasn't happening like this. It was as you say, some teasing and talking about girls.  

 

It is the culture that has coarsened and obviously, this filters down to the kids if the parents let it into the home (media) or just if everyone else at school does. 

 

[bolt.]

I'm glad it worked for your son. He got his capital from being on-side with a known policy, and by being among boys who accepted org policy as a valid, relevant form of power. Also, the music had no potential of jumping out of the speakers and assaulting him, so there is some difference between the situations.

 

I definitely think that researching for policy is s good move. If possible, I hope there is an anonymous reporting mechanism, because the boy is very young and the risks-beyond-ribbing seem real.

 

I definitely think we should be teaching our kids exactly, "You should speak up if you have social capital, but if you don't, the best course is to keep your head down."

 

I think it teaches kids what power is, how to recognize it, how to know when they have it, where it comes from, and what to do with it. Knowing when you actually *are* disempowered and knowing how to eventually change that status is not the same as teaching them to 'be disempowered'. In school, power comes with age and size: both of which will come to each boy over the years. A boy who can *actually* change the locker room with a plan to find power and use it in good time... That can be s better approach than using direct words in every situation that he's not ok with seeing.

Edited May 10, 2016 by bolt.

[TranquilMind]

If being twerked on from behind or mounted is non-consensual, it's a battery in about 50 states.

The problem is the going along with it...while it may appear to be consensual, it could actually be just fear of worse reprisals for speaking out against it.

 

Exactly.  It is not consensual, but they wonder what they can do about it, as the more powerless kids of the group. 

This is where the adults/coaches need to make sure this never, ever happens. 

Edited May 10, 2016 by TranquilMind

[Haiku]

I'm glad it worked for your son. He got his capital from being on-side with a known policy, and by being among boys who accepted org policy as a valid, relevant form of power. 

 

No, you are wrong. The policy was put in place because my son said something. And it's not an organizational policy; it's something the coach and the boys of that team worked out.

 

 

 

I think it teaches kids what power is, how to recognize it, how to know when they have it, where it comes from, and what to do with it. Knowing when you actually *are* disempowered and knowing how to eventually change that status is not the same as teaching them to 'be disempowered'.

 

Once again, I disagree. If we take a mildly uncomfortable situation like the OP described and make it about who has power and who doesn't and teach our kids not to speak up because they might experience some social discomfort, then what we have taught them is that it's certainly safer not to speak up when there are larger issues (and larger power differentials) at stake.