This article is inane for the most part. It does a reasonable job of presenting the jock stereotype but the last two sentences seem like nothing more than the repressed anguish of some poor abused student, and should be removed.—This unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs) .
- I agree. The last two sentences are not clearly written, confusing, and seeminly pointless in their current form. They should be either removed or reworded for greater clarity.
The arousal inspired by jock's athletic bodies, coupled with the fear they inspire through bullying, has made the stereotype a classic icon in erotica, and in marketing such as that used by Abercrombie and Fitch.
This sentence is vague.
I agree with the above comments. It seems as if the article were written by victims of jock abuse. Overall, the article is boring. Rintrah 15:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if the origin of the word comes from the Italian giacatore -- pronounced jock-a-tor-ay.
For instance, former teammates in the NFL told Esera Tuaolo they would injure him if they found out that he had a male companion. - Ummm yeah. I am a male who has had many male companions but am not gay. I think what is meant is lover, boyfriend, or sexual partner. The number of female companions I have had would make me almost as promiscuous as Casanova, if there is no distinction between a euphemism and an actual denotation. Rintrah 11:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I've reworked the article somewhat. I think it sounds much better and more professional (and not like it was written by a middle-schooler). Lets look into sculpting the article so that we can get rid of those cleanup and citation needed tags. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC).
Only a stereotype?
Comparing this article to the article on Preppies one can spot a few differences in the approach. Although this deals very well with Jock as a popular culture stereotype it has little to say about the actual real life Jock subculture as it identifies itself or as others identify it. That's probably why its NPOV is being disputed, there's no separation here between fact and fiction, essentially because there's no direct attempt to cover factual aspects. --JamesTheNumberless 16:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Does not receive punishment for off-the-field offenses as severe a non-jock would for similar or identical mishaps. - What does that mean? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
It means that schools tend to let jocks get away with anything -- take that business with the Duke lacrosse players raping those girls. --PhoenixVTam 19:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, there was only one accuser in the 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal, and rape charges have subsequently been dropped or are not being pursued. --Ssbohio 00:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
True, but I seriously doubt Duke University would have bent over backwards to readmit students guilty of -- at the very least -- sexual harassment and bad behavior like that if they weren't sports jocks. Jocks get away with a lot more than "regular" students because the school *wants* to get those prestigious victories in intercollegiate sports. --PhoenixVTam 22:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Phoenix, you're ignoring the fact that such a gross, public injustice was done to these accused. I hardly believe that they "got away" with anything. I would argue that given their status as athletes, they were treated MORE unfairly, with harsher punishment (e.g., suspension of the entire season, 24 hour international negative publicity, magazine covers) than the typical rape cases that happen on a daily basis and go uncovered by the media. And that's for people whom the district attorney's office went on to call "innocent." So what kind of preferential treatment do you think they got? 184.108.40.206 17:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of the specific case of the Duke Lacrosse Team, there certainly is a well-known feeling that athletes, at least star athletes, avoid punishment, or receive less-severe punishment for misconduct than other people do. One can argue the merits of any particular case, but the general impression is that athletes do get preferential treatment. Wschart (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
How to proceed with this article
I'm considering stubbifying this article unless I (or someone else) finds the time to improve this article's point of view, among other things. I added descriptive quotes and a cited source to one section of the article, and I'd liek to do more, but I have such little time. --Ssbohio 00:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'd even go as far as suggesting that this article be marked for deletion; it so weak and there seems to be so little to say about the matter that isn't entirely comprised of poorly written high-school TV drama/ teen movie stereotypes. I merely throw out this suggestion as a challenge to those interested to articulate why it should be kept and to defend the subject matter as worthy of encyclopedic inclusion.220.127.116.11 18:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. before i read this article, i didn't know what the word JOCK even mean. After I skimp through this article, I kinda get the idea of what it mean but no more than that. I think this article should be put in STUB article, because there are people out there just like me who don't know what JOCK mean if this article is to expand and improve correctly, it would be a very useful article. Lacastrian (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I looked at the link to the XY editorial, and it doesn't look like this article did a very good job of representing its contents. First of all, it's written as a tongue-in-cheek "fairy tale" (pun presumably intended), so it's not appropriate to say that the editor made those claims about the real A&F. (Yes, it's the obvious target, but the semifiction format is specifically chosen so that the editor would have some poetic license.) Furthermore, the editorial is about A&F specifically; it's not an essay on jock culture. It even acknowledges that it once praised the A&F catalog's imagery. Its complaint is about the organization's advertising practices; it seems to be denouncing the practice of selling products with homoeroticism but spurning overt association with gays. A common point, but not one that has anything to do with jocks.
Get rid of the bit, I say. 18.104.22.168 15:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
List of characteristics
should be added and expanded.
why is there on going references to gym teachers? im removing them. SexyLui 21:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
This article sucks! It's highly negative towards jocks.
When it comes to bullying, not all jocks are overly violent, they just protect their dignity and close people sometimes. I think the best practise is to be calm and to ignore bad people. However, you look like a jerk if you let others humiliate you. Then, you should ignore them. There are jocks that ignore it at the beginning, like me. Most people stop humiliating and teasing you here. However, if they are so bad and/or dumb that nothing stops them from humiliating you or someone you love, what should you do? Just stare? Or have an argument? Words hurt more than fighting. Usually that is the point you should slap them or do something like this. It's always better than scandals, because it makes your emotions go out, whether scandals make you feel bad inside. That is not violence to me, it is stating your rights and dignity. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree that the article is too negative. It's POV. It should be deleted in my opinion. Caden S (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
moved from Jock (subculture) to Jock (athlete)
See Talk:List_of_subcultures#spring_cleaning_time. It's not listed as a subculture at High_school_subcultures, and article describes the topic as being a stereotype --Enric Naval (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I've tagged this page as POV as it IS incredibly negative. The article implies that jocks are solely a media construct and only addresses them as such. This is highly inappropriate, while it may not be as clearly defined as other youth sub-cultures, it is definitely there. I was one of the "jocks" in high school, and its a little weird to read that apparently my social cliche was nothing more then a stereotype, and an extremely negative one at that.
Also: "These terms are to most often refer to the conceit and selfishness that develops with the stereotype." looks very one sided, I'm not sure whether it is saying that people who fit the Jock mold ARE selfish and conceited or that is how it appears to others, or is typical in the media or what? Its rather vague.
- I'm just reading this, and I notice that throughout the article, the only stereotypes and general assumptions mentioned are really negative. Aren't there any good things that could be mentioned? As someone who did sports, and was part of the "jock" cliche in high school, I assure you that we aren't nearly as stupid and shallow as this article says... --Pstanton (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
In gay culture?
- Since there's absolutely nothing in the article about homosexuality (aside from homophobia being a stereotypical quality in jocks), I'd say no. -Hooliganb (talk) 02:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure the term jock originated in North America but the term is readily and widely used here in the UK, just thought I'd throw it out there, also, I'm sure it's used in Australia too, although I'm not sure :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
i added a new section and moved a few paragraphs from the introduction into it. i think it look better now. Lacastrian (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
WAY too negative
When the term "jock" emerged in the 1960s and through the 1980s perhaps, it had a more negative connotation when used on its own, but it has evolved to the point that it is now broadly a synonym for "athlete." You can certainly be a "dumb jock" or a "meathead jock" or the like, but without those qualifiers it's not a pejorative word on its own. This article is full of unsourced and anecdotal POV indicating otherwise. I don't have time to change it now, but I will definitely be watching it and working on it when I have time. I see I'm not the first to point out the POV. Moncrief (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- I can understand where you're coming from, but this article addresses the negative characteristics associated with the jock stereotype. I'm sure you know that stereotypes are broad generalizations which often do not and aren't expected to apply to every individual who has the misfortune of being labeled with it. Not all athletes are stereotypical jocks but all jocks are athletes. You are saying this article is too negative, but can you name one positive stereotype associated with so-called "jocks"? A stereotype is a stereotype whether its positive or negative. There are stereotypes that exist for every group of people on Earth regardless of how true they are or whether the groups likes them. I don't think this article violates NPOV because it isn't meant to offend or give a slanted view, only objectively list the characteristics that comprise the jock stereotype (not individuals who are labeled as jocks). Also, if "jock" was simply synonymous with "athlete" as you say then this article would have no purpose for existing. Cadiomals (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- But this article doesn't just address the negative stereotypes; it leads with them and is nearly exclusively about them. This is an article about a term, a term that has evolved in recent years to mean something very similar to "athlete." This article should exist in any event, because "jock" is a separate term from "athlete," with its own unique history. If someone said, "He's a total jock," would that implicitly have negative stereotypes for you today? It wouldn't for me, and I am far from a jock. There is much POV in this article. If you can see that at all, then you can start to fix it in places where you can see it. Moncrief (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Re: "but can you name one positive stereotype associated with so-called "jocks"?" Absolutely! Maybe there is a subtle regionalism to the term as it's used today, but in my experience it means something very close to "really good young athlete who spends a lot of time participating in sports." Not sure if that's "positive" or "negative." The term has an interesting evolution, which I'm glad is mentioned, and may have meant something different in, say, 1985, from what it means today, but, yes, I can think of "positive" stereotypes associated with the term. Moncrief (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- I forgot to mention positive stereotypes other than athleticism, which is an obvious one. Anyway, I can very easily see that this article has only negative stereotypes, but I don't know how else it could be structured. The jock stereotype is very much a media construct that is really only seen in teen shows and movies, as I have never actually met an athlete who fully embodies it. When someone says "He's a total jock" I tend to picture someone who is obsessed with sports and exercise, is relatively unintelligent and probably arrogant. You ask if the word "jock" actually brings to mind negative stereotypes. Well, having recently graduated from college and with memories of high school having not completely faded yet, I can say that the term jock still has bad connotations for me and everyone i know. Your profile says you were born in the Nixon administration which means high school is far behind you. Its hard to "address" the stereotype as you say because there aren't many studies done about whether they're actually true. The stereotype that blacks are poor and uneducated can be addressed through statistical information, but it isn't the same for this group, because its a psychographic rather than a demographic. I think what this article focuses on most is how the media portrays jocks rather than how they behave in real life. Do you have any suggestions on how we can re-structure this? Cadiomals (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- I will think about it. One thing I am certain about is that my experience or your experience is almost totally irrelevant. You need verifiable, non-anecdotal information, with as many links as possible. This article currently relies far too much on anecdotes and generalizations. Moncrief (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Education and Athletics
This section seems to be very one-sided, designed entirely to argue that athletes are actually exceptionally smart and excel in general, without any argument otherwise, creating the impression that the stereotypes is nothing but an idea with no real basis. The arguments made to suggest sports activity improves one's capabilities can certainly be argued. I mentioned the article that noted athletes excelling in all areas save standardized tests to numerous people, including a few teachers, and all immediately took it as proof that standardized tests are harder to cheat. These statements are purely anecdotal, but they demonstrate the point that the material can be debatable and some additional data may be useful. While my experience is immaterial, that does not change my knowledge that there is a good degree of dishonesty boosting athletes' marks, up to and including teachers "helping" athletes on their work or overlooking problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)