Maureen Dowd wrote Their Dangerous Swagger about some reprehensible behavior by some high school boys.
It was set up like a fantasy football league draft. The height, weight and performance statistics of the draftees were offered to decide who would make the cut and who would emerge as the No. 1 pick.
But the players in this predatory game were not famous N.F.L. stars. They were unwitting girls about to start high school.
A group of soon-to-be freshmen boys at Landon, an elite private grade school and high school for boys in the wealthy Washington suburb of Montgomery County, Md., was drafting local girls.
One team was called “The Southside Slampigs,” and one boy dubbed his team with crude street slang for drug-addicted prostitutes.
. . .
Before they got caught last summer, the boys had planned an “opening day party,” complete with T-shirts, where the mission was to invite the drafted girls and, unbeknownst to them, score points by trying to rack up as many sexual encounters with the young women as possible.
“They evidently got points for first, second and third base,” said one outraged father of a drafted girl. “They were going to have parties and tally up the points, and money was going to be exchanged at the end of the season.” He said that the boys would also have earned points for “schmoozing with the parents.”
. . .
Another parent was equally appalled: “I think the girls felt like they were getting targeted, that this was some big game. Talk about using people. It doesn’t get much worse than that.”
Landon is where the sons of many prominent members of the community are sent to learn “the code of character,” where “a Landon man” is part of a “true Brotherhood” and is known for his good word, respect and honesty. The school’s Web site boasts about the Landon Civility Code; boys are expected to “work together to eliminate all forms of disrespect” and “respect one another and our surroundings in our decorum, appearance, and interactions.”
. . .
Time for a curriculum overhaul. Young men everywhere must be taught, beyond platitudes, that young women are not prey.
I completely agree with the problems she identified and that women — young or old — should not be considered prey.
But where is Ms. Dowd’s grounding for such complaints? How can a pro-Planned Parenthood person be surprised at such coarse behavior? They have spent decades and millions of dollars teaching our youth that you can have sex without consequences if you are careful enough, that you can hide the evidence (i.e., abortion) if something goes wrong and that even if you end up HIV positive you don’t have to tell your sex partners. They tell kids to ignore their parents and their religion and just have sex when they think they are ready — which, not surprisingly, is the same time as when they want to have sex.
It is extremely well documented that Planned Parenthood hides statutory rape, so if Dowd really cares about these teenage girls she might want to speak up about that as well.
Dowd is correct to point out the despicable behavior of the boys. What she misses is that she has been part of the problem. She and all the Planned Parenthood-types successfully taught kids that sex is a recreational activity and that any relation to marriage or creating new life is purely coincidental. Looks like these boys were listening.
0 thoughts on “From the flying pigs category, I sort of agree with Maureen Dowd”
This is clearly a case from the “They castrate then bid the gilding be fruitful” category. I like your take on this Neil but as I was reading I couldn’t help but wonder how many columns she’s written decrying the lyrics in rap music? Perhaps she has, I wouldn’t know, but even if she has, as you say, where would her grounding be for that complaint also?
Appalling. I hope she sees her hypocrisy on this one.
Guys haze guys, guys haze girls, and – here’s another level in sick – girls haze girls in much the same way. This isn’t new and it isn’t changing.
True story: when I was a freshman at Syracuse University (1989-90), one of the first things I learned was that “going Greek” was the way to go – fraternities and sororities were very prolific. The sororities were notorious for the horrible abuse they put the pledges through, and what was necessary to “make the cut” (how much Daddy made; what you looked like; etc).
One sorority which I will not name had an interesting pledge week activity: the pledges had to appear for a public weigh-in, on the front porch of the sorority house, in their bathing suits, in front of the leering fraternity members. The girls were instructed on how much weight they had to lose before induction, and lest there be no room for misunderstanding, the “problem areas” were circled in permanent marker. (No, I did not join a sorority or have anything to do with this. I was far too much of a geek, even then).
My point is, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Human beings truly are totally depraved, sick, perverse creatures who take sadistic pleasure in doing stuff like this to each other. Then journalists get all indignant and act like “where did this come from?” It came from vile, unregenerate hearts – every once in a while, the veil of common grace is lifted just a peak and we get a glimpse of what “fine young people” are really like.
Then expel the boys who did this. Honour codes mean nothing without enforcement; and as a pragmatic manner, nothing short of total destruction of this kind of behaviour will ever convince a parent to send his daughter to Landon again.
I actually disagree on what is causing this behavior. I believe it is not promiscuity/casual sex being taught to boys. Instead, I think it is a lack of fathers raising sons. How do you learn to respect a woman you have a relationship with when you never see a role model in your home deomonstrating that behavior? That is certainly not the only factor. But I think it is a significant one.
Good point. The whole disintegration of the family thing is woven into this.
I think that is a good point indeed.
Yes, but what caused the destruction of the family? That was the explicit goal of third-wave feminists – to abolish marriage because of the “unequal roles” of husbands and wives.
Back in the day, and in some places still today, the girls dads and/or older brothers would have “taken care” of this problem and dealt out some swift justice. I’m not advocating anything here (legal disclaimer), but there have always been those who have no decency – I’m just saying that where human decency doesn’t act as a deterrent, fear works very well. The same forces that have removed decency as a motivator from our society are the ones that insist that we protect the perpetrators from the just consequences of their actions, and will give them a slap on the wrist, if anything at all. Is it any wonder that those with no decency also no longer have any fear?
Good points, The Duke. Thanks for visiting and commenting. Proverbs hints at this as well. While not condoning vigilantism, it does state the logical consequences of cheating, for example:
Proverbs 6:27-35 (New International Version). This society could probably use a little dose of this to make people fear the consequences of sin more.
27 Can a man scoop fire into his lap
without his clothes being burned?
28 Can a man walk on hot coals
without his feet being scorched?
29 So is he who sleeps with another man’s wife;
no one who touches her will go unpunished.
30 Men do not despise a thief if he steals
to satisfy his hunger when he is starving.
31 Yet if he is caught, he must pay sevenfold,
though it costs him all the wealth of his house.
32 But a man who commits adultery lacks judgment;
whoever does so destroys himself.
33 Blows and disgrace are his lot,
and his shame will never be wiped away;
34 for jealousy arouses a husband’s fury,
and he will show no mercy when he takes revenge.
35 He will not accept any compensation;
he will refuse the bribe, however great it is.
There is something to be said for tar and feathers and riding them out of town on a rail.
But we don’t even seem to have shame anymore.