Pick any group of people and you're bound to run into stereotypes: White guys can't dance, women can't drive, Buffalo Rising writers are studs with the ladies. You know, stereotypes. Most of the time, stereotypes are negative and offensive and reinforced by the occasional behavior of only a few members, ruining other people's perception of the entire group. Such is true for athletes stereotyped by the term "jock." UB's Kathleen E. Miller Ph.D conducted a study with 581 students who identified themselves as having an organized sports background.
Only 18 percent of these students strongly identified with the term "jock." 55 percent preferred to be identified as an "athlete," and strongly rejected the "jock" label, and were twice as likely to reject such a label. The results suggest that the term "jock" may represent a small group of troubled athletes whose perception of self may lead to high-risk behaviors like drug use and unsafe sex.
The "toxic jock," as they're labeled, are also prone to self-centered behavior and measured success by comparing themselves to others while the self-described athlete preferred mastery of skills and personal excellence. The "jock" also strongly identified with masculine attitudes towards winning, risk-taking, violence, sex, and dominance, while athletes only strongly identified with winning but rejected "playboy" attitudes about sex and were neutral about risk-taking, violence and dominance.
The point is, don't blame ALL athletes for getting shoved into your locker.
View image
Only 18 percent of these students strongly identified with the term "jock." 55 percent preferred to be identified as an "athlete," and strongly rejected the "jock" label, and were twice as likely to reject such a label. The results suggest that the term "jock" may represent a small group of troubled athletes whose perception of self may lead to high-risk behaviors like drug use and unsafe sex.
The "toxic jock," as they're labeled, are also prone to self-centered behavior and measured success by comparing themselves to others while the self-described athlete preferred mastery of skills and personal excellence. The "jock" also strongly identified with masculine attitudes towards winning, risk-taking, violence, sex, and dominance, while athletes only strongly identified with winning but rejected "playboy" attitudes about sex and were neutral about risk-taking, violence and dominance.
The point is, don't blame ALL athletes for getting shoved into your locker.
Of all the significant studies being done at UB, why are you choosing the most ridiculous ones to write about?
Of all the great stories on Buffalo Rising, why are you choosing the one you don't seem to like to comment on?
I comment on many of the stories posted. Not just this one. As a graduate of UB (MS) it pisses me off that of all the great research that comes from the University BRO picks this stupid crap to talk about. A few days ago they posted an article about some other ridiculous behavioral study. Of all the players in the NFL, why did you pick the Bills biggest disappointment to name yourself after?
Perhaps I can enlighten you a bit. So far as I can tell, looking back through the stories of Dan Fisher, he is a fairly light-hearted writer who attempts to infuse a little humor to a site which largely tries to cover serious issues in the city of Buffalo. I'm quite sure the other article you spoke about was written by Mr. Fisher as was the embarrassing commercial series he did a few months ago that made myself and many others laugh out loud.
If you are privy to the great research that is being done at the University of Buffalo, by all means write up a story and submit it to the editor. I look forward to reading your submission. But to simply write a meaningless comment about a story that is well written and amusing to some people is a little sad and pathetic. Your comment was neither insightful nor does it offer anything of value to the site or the city. So share some of your knowledge and thoughts in a positive way by writing about something that you specialize in, otherwise perhaps you should just skip over the one or two articles you find to be uninspiring.
My original "meaningless comment" was not a comment at all, it was actually a question...which was not answered by the author. It was not intended to be inspiring or insightful. It wasn't being asked of you, yet you answered. The only "sad and pathetic" thing I see on this comment board is the kicker in your logo.