Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here is an example of Greenwich behavior that is disturbing to some, but not to others. Although it is hearsay, I have no reason to doubt the following anecdote that was related to me by a woman I met in a swim store whose swim team I was admiring. I believe it was 2013. The woman was from either Darien or New Canaan. She said that her daughter's swim team had beaten the Greenwich swim team the year before. As a result, during a dual meet that season, the Greenwich team did the following, in retaliation. The Greenwich team did not attend warmup. (Swim teams always warm up ahead of time.) The Greenwich team came onto deck late enough so that it was unsettling, but not so late that they forfeited. (Teams are always at the pool before start. If they are late, they are often given the option of warming up before start.) All the Greenwich swimmers had their long red jackets on. (Swimmers wear swim suits, not jackets to the starting blocks.) Then, when the whistle blew, the Greenwich swimmers took off their jackets. Underneath, they all had performance suits. (Performance suits -- the super expensive, fast suits -- are worn for championship meets, never for dual meets.) And then the Greenwich swimmers did other weird things too. None of it was illegal. It was a major psych out. Some people would applaud the Greenwich team for psyching their opponents out. Others would consider it bad form, bad sportsmanship. Regardless, it was mean, and socially aggressive. Greenwich won the dual meet, not because of skill, but for other reasons. Imagine Michael Phelps holding a meet up, and then wearing a jacket up to the block, not taking the jacket off until the last minute, and underneath it having a bathing suit that was 6X the cost of everyone else's bathing suit, and was designed to give him a competitive advantage. And, yes, there are regional differences in language and customs. If you haven't read anything academic, consider the existence of these forums.
That would be the swim team coach, who is an adult, that is responsible, or else the school athletic director, also an adult, that I would hold responsible instead of the team members. Very easy for one of them to say, "we lost last time, so I want to try something different this time out... wear your warm up jackets until you get to the starting line, then show them your new performance uniforms."
I grew up in a small blue collar town, and both our town - and our arch rivals across the river- would always try out different psychological tactics on each other. The fans in the stands would try out new insults, I mean cheers, to voice at the opposing teams, the cheerleaders would try new cheers, and the players would warm up differently as well. (I'm sure just about every basketball team around the Northeast from the mid 70s to the late 80s tried for that Willis Reed moment with an injured player hobbling out to play and inspiring his or her teammates...)
This is a ridiculous post. All I see is "they, they, they", which means you're painting with a very broad brush. They don't make eye contact. They are competitive. They don't swear. They put kids down. See what I mean?
And if you don't think kids in "rural CT" swear, then you're completely out of touch.
Agreed 100%
I'd also add that nonny is also saying that rural kids aren't competitive and don't put other kids down, either. Larry Bird was one of the most competitive basketball players ever and grew up in rural French Lick, Indiana (population around 1,800). He was also one of the biggest trash talkers in the game...
I didn't say that the rural kids don't put others down. I certainly did not say that they were not competitive. That's just a weird, gratuitous, nasty put down on your part. And if you find my post so stupid, then why are you wasting your time making up things I didn't say and responding to them. Now *that * is ridiculous, and beyond ridiculous. I thought that this was moderated? If you disagree with something I say, then please stick to reality and disagree with the statement.
When I did say that country kids didn't swear, I was alluding to the fact that they don't drop the F bomb word into every sentence around strangers, like I've seen in city kids. It's the topic that the original poster raised. The question on the table was not 'do kids ever swear'. It was about getting away from nonstop swearing *as part of conversation.* My perception that rural kids are sheltered -- not socially sophisticated-- is not earth shattering. Look up the relationship of being sheltered and sophisticated. That experience changes the way that they are aggressive. If rural kids swear, it's with their buddies, or with people who are annoying. I like them. I like them better than the Greenwich kids. I like them better than the city kids. I like their interests. I like their honesty, which does NOT mean I think that they never lie. It does not mean that they are not competitive. It does mean that their expression of those traits is different. When I have corrected rural kids, it's usually about some over simplification of a concept that they're unfamiliar with from another group, like a stereotype, not swearing as part of formal discourse. Social aggression is a different form of aggression. There are many different forms. Social aggression is not swearing at an opponent. It's ganging up on someone, and making up things, and leaving them out.... like you're doing now. It's a different way of putting someone down. It's not direct.
All the top swimmers have performance suits. Certainly the kids in Darien can afford them. There is nothing new about that. But all the teams save these suits for championship meets. It's an unspoken rule because performance suits only last for about three meets (depending on how many events the particular swimmer is in). Sometimes the suits rip after one meet. (Yes, a $500 suit will last for only a couple of hours sometimes. And they take about 30 minutes to put on.) Sometimes, yes, they can last 5 meets if they person isn't in the water with them that much. If people wore performance suits for dual meets, it would cost a swimmer several thousand dollars for the season. This would knock any swimmer out of the competition who didn't have between $2,000-$6,000 for swim suits a season, in addition to all the other costs. So, swimmers don't typically wear these suits. Swimmers save the performance suits for the meets in which their times count. By uncovering themselves at the last minute, the Greenwich team were ensuring that the other kids did not have time to get their performance suits, which is a pretty controversial approach to sportsmanship. (An analogue in another sport might be a ball that gave one team an advantage that the other team could not have access to.) I disagree that it is all on the coach. The parents have to buy these suits. Parents are very aware of the implications of adding a $500 cost onto every-other meet, and the time that it would take to buy these. It's a lot of money, and it takes a lot of time to try those suits on -- usually about two hours. They are skin tight and the kids need someone else to dress them. Plus, the technology keeps changing, the costs keep rising on these suits, and the kids' bodies change. Wearing these at dual meets would change the sport completely. It's not comparable to a cheer (jeer). It's pretty extreme, esp. for a dual meet.
I didn't say that the rural kids don't put others down. I certainly did not say that they were not competitive. That's just a weird, gratuitous, nasty put down on your part. And if you find my post so stupid, then why are you wasting your time making up things I didn't say and responding to them. Now *that * is ridiculous, and beyond ridiculous. I thought that this was moderated? If you disagree with something I say, then please stick to reality and disagree with the statement.
When I did say that country kids didn't swear, I was alluding to the fact that they don't drop the F bomb word into every sentence around strangers, like I've seen in city kids. It's the topic that the original poster raised. The question on the table was not 'do kids ever swear'. It was about getting away from nonstop swearing *as part of conversation.* My perception that rural kids are sheltered -- not socially sophisticated-- is not earth shattering. Look up the relationship of being sheltered and sophisticated. That experience changes the way that they are aggressive. If rural kids swear, it's with their buddies, or with people who are annoying. I like them. I like them better than the Greenwich kids. I like them better than the city kids. I like their interests. I like their honesty, which does NOT mean I think that they never lie. It does not mean that they are not competitive. It does mean that their expression of those traits is different. When I have corrected rural kids, it's usually about some over simplification of a concept that they're unfamiliar with from another group, like a stereotype, not swearing as part of formal discourse. Social aggression is a different form of aggression. There are many different forms. Social aggression is not swearing at an opponent. It's ganging up on someone, and making up things, and leaving them out.... like you're doing now. It's a different way of putting someone down. It's not direct.
All the top swimmers have performance suits. Certainly the kids in Darien can afford them. There is nothing new about that. But all the teams save these suits for championship meets. It's an unspoken rule because performance suits only last for about three meets (depending on how many events the particular swimmer is in). Sometimes the suits rip after one meet. (Yes, a $500 suit will last for only a couple of hours sometimes. And they take about 30 minutes to put on.) Sometimes, yes, they can last 5 meets if they person isn't in the water with them that much. If people wore performance suits for dual meets, it would cost a swimmer several thousand dollars for the season. This would knock any swimmer out of the competition who didn't have between $2,000-$6,000 for swim suits a season, in addition to all the other costs. So, swimmers don't typically wear these suits. Swimmers save the performance suits for the meets in which their times count. By uncovering themselves at the last minute, the Greenwich team were ensuring that the other kids did not have time to get their performance suits, which is a pretty controversial approach to sportsmanship. (An analogue in another sport might be a ball that gave one team an advantage that the other team could not have access to.) I disagree that it is all on the coach. The parents have to buy these suits. Parents are very aware of the implications of adding a $500 cost onto every-other meet, and the time that it would take to buy these. It's a lot of money, and it takes a lot of time to try those suits on -- usually about two hours. They are skin tight and the kids need someone else to dress them. Plus, the technology keeps changing, the costs keep rising on these suits, and the kids' bodies change. Wearing these at dual meets would change the sport completely. It's not comparable to a cheer (jeer). It's pretty extreme, esp. for a dual meet.
Again, all I'm seeing is "they, they, them, they". Yes, your posts in this thread are ridiculous and don't help anyone wanting to learn more about a community. Enough with the sweeping generalizations. There is more to life than what goes on in a natatorium.
What the Greenwich team did in the swimming pool is a specific example of a type of behavior that other schools found offensive. It's a type of behavior that no other school in CT has exhibited, or would be likely to exhibit.
What a random anecdote to use to try and paint a negative picture of an entire town. The GHS swim team wore special suits to psyche out the other teams - really? OK.... the fact that they've dominated FFC swimming for the last 20 years with their talent couldn't have had anything to do with their success, I suppose. Maybe your kid or grandkid lost to GHS swimming so it's a sore spot for you, but really - how ridiculous.
Most of these towns have obvious and hidden issues. Drugs, crime, drunk driving, underage sex, etc. all the trappings of mom and dad plus all the pressure privilege brings. Mayberry, RFD, it is not, much to the detriment of our kids. The Problem With Rich Kids | Psychology Today
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
