<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/sports/ncaafootball/-joe-paterno-and-graham-spanier-out-at-penn-state.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/sports/ncaafootball/-joe-paterno-and-graham-spanier-out-at-penn-state.html</a></p>
<p>Isn’t this a bit harsh for an employee with 62 years experience?</p>
<p>We are a die hard PSU family and we know many stories of Joe’s personal generosity and goodness. He did not do enough in this instance. He should have told Mike to report the incident to the police or C&Y. Paterno should have also reported it to the AD, but this was first and foremost a crime, and secondarily a personnel issue. </p>
<p>How sad that this will be Joe’s legacy.</p>
<p>How many boys were raped since 1994 so this football program’s reputation could remain untarnished? All of these men have had successful high-profile careers while these boys have suffered with shame, guilt, insecurity, trust issues, and suffering in silence. These boys’ lives are forever damaged. It’s tough to feel sorry for the men whose self-centered actions/inactions served to create the mess they’re in today.</p>
<p>I feel badly for Joe. I thought he should have retired several years ago. That’s water under the bridge now. Yes he should have been more attentive. The whole situation begs him to have asked “OK, exactly what did you see?” Telephoning University executives doesn’t begin to be a reasonable response. JMHO.</p>
<p>The most telling thing to me was the statement Paterno made yesterday that the board of trusty should not spend anymore time looking at this and that he will retire at the end of the season as if it was his and his decision alone that could be made here. It seems to me he is a little out of touch with reality at this point.</p>
<p>There is another thread on this in the Parent’s forum and I haven’t read the whole thing. I will say this, though. Any adult who knowingly ignores, minimizes or covers up abuse of children is, in part, responsible for that abuse. I don’t know all of the details but the fact that this pedophile was allowed to continue to bring children onto that campus, after having been witnessed abusing boys twice, makes Penn State implicit in his crimes.</p>
<p>Football was more important than the harm done to those children. And it appears, from reading the reports, that for many in the Penn State community, it still is.</p>
<p>Good riddance! I’m glad the president got the boot as well. Anyone who thinks that a stellar football program is more important than a few human lives (possibly permanently ruined) needs a new brain.</p>
<p>I’m old enough to remember a time when child abuse, and especially child sexual abuse, was not talked about in this country. As a consequence, there were many people in my parents’ generation who probably never gave it a thought in their lives. It all went on underground, and most people didn’t want to ever know about it or believe it existed.</p>
<p>Joe Paterno is a generation older than I am. It may be an exaggeration to say that kids younger than high school age were “women’s work” in his world, but I know they were in mine when I was growing up.</p>
<p>None of this is an excuse for what he did. It was right for him to be fired. What he did was harmful and wrong. But it may be a way to help understand his actions that doesn’t paint him as an evil monster, but rather just a misguided person who made a terrible, terrible mistake.</p>
<p>What i don’t understand is that these boys are not kids anymore, they are 18-20s and they can’t defend themselves? They can’t go and report these incidents?</p>
<p>I’m not clear on what Skyhook meant here: “Joe Paterno is a generation older than I am. It may be an exaggeration to say that kids younger than high school age were “women’s work” in his world, but I know they were in mine when I was growing up.”</p>
<p>I have heard the phrase “womens work” and I thought it was a phrase that meant because they were women, they were responsible for cooking, cleaning, minding the children, back in the day when there was a male “breadwinner” and a female “homemaker”. Skyhook says kids are “womens work” in Joe’s world. Is Skyhook saying Joe feels that womens work is not only cleaning and cooking, but also includes being raped in the anus is women’s work, and that since kids younger than high school are “women’s work”, then it is their job to be raped in the anus by 60 yr old men? I don’t get the kids are women’s work statement.</p>
<p>I hope I am misunderstanding, or that Skyhook didn’t actually write what was intended.</p>
<p>I just don’t see how hearing allegations like that wouldn’t haunt you so much that, even if you thought you were only supposed to report to your boss, you wouldn’t follow up and follow up and follow up. I mean, if I observed a co-worker stealing, reported it, and observed no consequences, I’d go back and ask what happened. If I reported a co-worker raping someone [cannot imagine not going to the police, but for the sake of argument], reported it to my boss and observed no consequences, I can’t imagine just forgetting about it.</p>
<p>Sexual abuse of a child needs to be reported to police immediately, not just to an employee’s supervisor. Unfortunately some employees are apparently still being fired for doing so according to attached news story. Unbelievable!</p>
<p>[Florida</a> Teachers Fired For Reporting Abuse at Catholic School - ABC News](<a href=“Teachers Fired for Reporting Abuse, Lawsuit Claims - ABC News”>Teachers Fired for Reporting Abuse, Lawsuit Claims - ABC News)</p>
<p>younghoss-
I’m not saying cooking and cleaning and care of young children is women’s work in my view. I am saying that in past generations it was largely viewed that way by society. </p>
<p>I have no idea what “Joe’s world” is, I am merely speculating what it might logically be, given when he formed his values.</p>
<p>I said none of this excused his behavior, I said it may help explain his behavior, which <em>might</em> not be solely related to covering up the crime in order to protect the football program. To men of my father’s generation young children were largely invisible, and society in general closed its eyes to child abuse. It was a bad thing, which we have come a long way in correcting in the intervening years.</p>
<p>I am happy to clarify my views, but I didn’t deserve your fifth sentence.</p>
<p>I know you aren’t saying cooking and cleaning is “womens work” in your view. Is that what you thought I said? Your post 13, seems to indicate I thought the phrase “womens work” was your personal opinion. Not so. I never said that it was your view. Your quote says “in his world” and my comment uses the phrase “in Joe’s world”. I later used the phrase “Joe feels…” That should have made the distinction. Personally, I think I am aware of what is meant by the phrase “women’s work” whether I like the phrase or not, I understand the meaning. Or, I thought I did, until you said [Joe may feel]kids younger than high school ARE women’s work. To me, that means Joe may define women’s work as what women must do to please a man because they ARE women. Examples could include cooking, cleaning, etc. So if young kids ARE womens work, then I take that to mean that you suspect{in Joe’s world] those kids must do what a woman(in those old days) should do. That might include sex with a man.(women’s work, in Joe’s world) I would consider that point of view unacceptable to me.</p>
<p>Now, I see what you wrote is not at all what you meant. I’d add that I am pleased I misunderstood your meaning. In your post 13, you say the “care of young children” was once considered women’s work. That makes perfect sense. I completely agree it was. You didn’t mean kids are womens work(in Joe’s mind), you meant CARING for kids is women’s work(in Joe’s mind). There is a huge difference in my mind. That is why I asked for the clarification.</p>
<p>And this demonstrates the power of clear writing, and clear reading. What you wrote wasn’t clear in meaning to me, so I asked for a clarification. Similarly, if you believed that I said your view was about “women’s work” then you have misunderstood what I wrote. That indicates I didn’t write it clearly, or you didn’t read it clearly. In this post, I have been careful to add “in Joe’s world” often so I would be clear that I understand you are speculating on how Joe feels, and not expressing your own personal opinion on the validity of the phrase “women’s work”.</p>
<p>younghoss, you might want to toss a little clearer apology in there along with your criticism of Skyhook’s writing style.</p>
<p>I have to say that I understood and agreed with Skyhook’s view of Joe’s generation but, Younghoss, you lost me.</p>
<p>I’m a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, and I think that Paterno should have been allowed to finish out the year. I also think that the President of the University and any and all members of the board of Trustees who knew anything about the abuse should be gone. Paterno followed the letter of the law. Yes, he should morally have pursued the matter, but it is the people above him that failed the children and the ultimately the University as well. And the admit they fired Paterno “to protect the University” - worrying about their own butts and still showing no concern for the victims. Heck, even our own Governor can be implicated in this mess.</p>
<p>I can actually understand where Paterno is coming from because I’ve seen it in my own life. People don’t want to think the worst of close friends and relatives. How many spouses/parents/pastors/etc. will believe the accused rather than the victim!</p>
<p>Thank you KKmama for your words.</p>
<p>Joe had to go. Penn State could even be facing a RICO lawsuit with this mess.</p>
<p>[Penn</a> State coach Joe Paterno still could face legal trouble - St. Petersburg Times](<a href=“http://www.tampabay.com/sports/college/penn-state-coach-joe-paterno-still-could-face-legal-trouble/1200845]Penn”>http://www.tampabay.com/sports/college/penn-state-coach-joe-paterno-still-could-face-legal-trouble/1200845)</p>
<p>Hunt has a good point there, aimed at me, and Hunt is correct.
I am sorry that I misunderstood what Skyhook meant when Skyhook was speculating on Joe’s way of thinking.
I am even more sorry that my writing was so poor that Skyhook didn’t see the distinction I tried to make about what what clear to me that Skyhook was speculating on what might be Joe’s perspective.</p>