<p>First, many more boys not graduating high school, going to college, or taking their places in society was already under way in the late '80s/'90s when I was going to middle/high school. </p>
<p>There are a number of reasons for this including:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Males from the ages of 12-24 have the highest probability of being involved in and imprisoned for violent crimes according to several veteran cops and a criminology article I read in college. That was confirmed by what I’ve seen/heard happen to several middle school classmates who were/are probably still serving long sentences in prison for felonies like drug dealing, mugging passersby on the streets, and worse. </p></li>
<li><p>Up until recently had historically had more job options not requiring HS/college and which excluded women due to discrimination and/or conditions of the job. Hence, less incentive for finishing HS or going on for further education. </p></li>
<li><p>According to older neighbors…especially military vets, they’ve noticed parents/schools have become far less strict about disciplining boys for violating classroom discipline than was the case when they attended public school back in the '50s/'60s while girls were still held to higher behavioral standards, academic achievement/behaving well in classroom was seen by many boys and disturbingly…even some younger fathers as "for girls, not “real boys/men”. That last part really puzzled and angered the military vets who felt that last part was a sign of the slackening behavioral standards for boys compared to when they were growing up. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Even my elementary Catholic School when I attended in the early-late '80s was said to be far less strict about enforcing classroom discipline compared to when they attended 20-30 years before. For instance, they experienced having their knuckles rapped hard with a wooden ruler for the most minor of classroom infractions in the 50’s/60s. That was gone by the time my class was there.</p>
<p>Maybe the girl can go after the networks along with ANY one else who is caught with images of her rape. It would be divine justice if CNN had to pay her for adding to her pain.</p>
<p>Sopranomom, I couldn’t possibly care less of what you think of what I call my own husband.</p>
<p>For your information, my husband was raised in a very violent household with relatives in jail for soprano-type behavior and I stand by my assertion that I respect the parents of the victim for their restraint. The goombah to whom I am married would also be in jail now because that is how he was raised. Edited to add: my husband defines himself as a goombah. He gets to do that and you don’t get to object. Just as I get to refuse to define myself as a feminism and view that philosophy as a negative and divisive one.</p>
<p>I hope the victims family gets media to pay. They have NO business releasing her name. Damages from media could allow the family to start a new life. Hope there will be actions against homeowners and car owners too.</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure this refers to the video of Richmond’s apology in court in which he addresses the victim by her first name once. I don’t think that counts as releasing her name publicly. I watched it once and couldn’t even understand what he said.</p>
<p>Oh, I get it now. You can be “insulted” and lash out as you wish, but, others, who are insulted by your specific words, are not to be tolerated. I am sorry that your H was born into a gangster family. You don’t want to hear that referring to Italian-Americans as goombahs is insulting to us. So, you justify it by saying that your H refers to himself in this manner. Ok, by that logic, you can use the N word any time you wish, why should anyone be insulted, after all, there are quite a few instances of African-American males referring themselves and each other that way?</p>
<p>Good luck with that. Your colors are showing through the mask.</p>
<p>Yes if the parents of rapists owned the car used where she was raped, yes by all means they could be pursued. </p>
<p>Agree victims name and her family’s name should have been bleeped and withheld. Hope her family recovers enough for her to move far from this awful place.</p>
<p>Lashed out at what spranaomom? Speaking of colors shining through. you glorify with your screen name what my husband struggles against. </p>
<p>I didn’t lash out at anything. I said I will not define myself as a feminist. My husband defines himself as a goombah. Those are our rights, and your opinion is of no consequence. I am not lashing out, I’m not upset, but you are off the wall. Calm down and clearly articulate your issue with me, but again, my marriage is not your business and if you can’t understand the difference between a marriage of decades and random people off the street, then you have much bigger problems than a message board can help you with.</p>
<p>She has security constantly? Unbelievable. Why aren’t the boys the ones needing security? I can’t imagine the anger her parents must feel and I can’t imagine how they have restrained themselves.</p>
<p>That’s hilarious, Zoosermom. At first, I didn’t understand what you were talking about…My daughter is a singer! That’s where the screen name comes from. lol!!</p>
<p>At least, others reading this realize, if they didn’t already, that “goombah” is a very insulting word to Italians. You, apparently, are unreachable. If YOU said it, it can’t be an insult, obviously. Oh well, enjoy the rest of your day/life!</p>
<p>My son yesterday “made” his high school varsity team in a sport and today he came home with the code of conduct for all do us to sign, as well as a copy of the code of conduct that his coaches have signed. Is this universal? Assuming it is, does this mean that all coaches involved in this kind of behavior would now be unemployable in the field? In other words, are there professional consequences to their conduct?</p>
<p>Everyone in Steubenville and the surrounding area knows the girl’s identity. Among other things, as I understand it, Anonymous released the transcript of the probable cause hearing and did not redact the girl’s name. (I think the site was taken down for other reasons.) It’s at that point the girl almost backed out of pressing charges–or at least that’s my understanding of the prosecutor’s remarks. </p>
<p>I think the young woman’s name should be kept private. However, the NYTimes itself is guilty of providing enough info that anyone who lives in the area could figure out who she is.</p>
<p>If you read different accounts from different news sources, almost anyone anywhere could because, while not naming the girl, they give different details about her and add the details together and you could probably identify the girl.</p>
<p>It drives me up a wall. It just seems unfair to avoid naming her but give identifying info. For example, news accounts enable you to figure out her age, what school she attends, what year she is in, which sport she plays, and tell you that she was on honor roll. It isn’t a huge school. How many girls do you think that information describes? Add to that they identify her former boyfriend. The networks didn’t bleep out her first name. The local message board has been identifying her by initials. So, first name, initial of last name, school, year, sport, on honor roll for X marking period. But they all include this pat on the back to themselves for maintaining her privacy. </p>
<p>I find it nauseating. If you aren’t going to release her name, don’t release other identifying info.</p>