How Do Male Teachers Feel About Talking to Attractive Female Students?

I will admit, without being anonymous, that when I first started teaching, at age 23, sure, I found some female students attractive. But I found they were usually quite aware of their charms and some definitely trying to bank on them. u201cStuck upu201d was the term we used then.

Ainu2019t nobody got time for that. It didnu2019t help that I had the yearbook job basically dumped on me and I was therefore required to take photos of students at all kinds of events. This often put me in situations where I sometimes had to approach and talk to some pretty young things (cue the song) with a camera in hand.

It wasnu2019t too awkward, but thatu2019s only my perception of things - maybe it was for them. Itu2019s either a real credit to my professionalism that none of them ever accused me of being a creeper, or I was too nerdy for it to matter. Maybe it was 50/50.

At least two female students on the yearbook staff not-so-secretly referred to me as u201cMuffin,u201d as in, stud muffinu2014Iu2019m not ugly, but I am fairly certain that was a joke. Teenage girls will take any excuse to giggle with each other about stuff. Things changed a lot for me when, at 27, my wife and I had our first child, a girl.

And then the second child was a girl too, adorable little creatures that I desperately wanted to protect from anything remotely bad, and make sure the world appreciated them on their merits and not just their appearance. Thereu2019s nothing like a pair of daughters to turn a man into a feminist real fast. Truly realizing that the young women in my classroom are somebodyu2019s daughters seems like a Captain Obvious thing, but it worked for me.

If youu2019re still reading, you might be interested to know that for a while there (until I was around 30) I basically overcompensated - was maybe tougher on the pretty girls than was necessary. I might call them out on petty things, or grade their papers a bit more strictly than others, ignore their excuses when I might be merciful to a male student. I gave one cheerleader her first ever detention for being late, and earned lots of dirty looks from other pretty young things.

These days, 17 years in, I really do strive to treat all students equally

· Related Questions

Is there a list of all major "parts" and building blocks of every programming language?

All (Turing-Complete) programming languages have to have seven core features:Assign, Subtract, Negate, Conditional Jump, Absolute Jump, Relative Jump, StopEvery programming language used for non-technical tasks (C, BCPL, Ada, Pascal, Smalltalk, Python, PHP, Java, etc) is Turing-Complete and implements these seven features. All more complex instructions are comprised of just these seven.

They're the fundamental set.The CPL family of languages (CPL, BCPL, B, C, C#, C, Objective C, D, and a few others) have primitive notions of procedures/functions. You have encapsulated blocks of code and independent encapsulated blocks of data, a simple concept of scope and value parameters.

This family is sequentially-oriented and block-oriented.The Pascal family of languages (Pascal, Modula-2, Modula-3, Ada, Eiffel, Occam) have codified concepts of procedures and functions. Encapsulation is much the same as in the CPL family, but this family is much more rigorous.

Scope is more-or-less the same. Parameters can be returned as well as given. The family is mostly sequential (with the exception of occam) and block-oriented, with a strong leaning towards enforcing correct (not necessarily efficient or fast) code.

The object family of languages (Smalltalk, Objective C, C, D, Java, later versions of Ada) have the notion of combining code and data into a single entity called a class. Instances are thread-safe with respect to each other but a given instance has to be written to be reentrant. Classes can inherit from other classes or include instances of other classes.

This means a single item of data has the potential to have multiple, non-deterministic scopes. It's very easy to write extremely good code, it's also easy to write extremely bad code.Aspect/Template/Feature-oriented languages (C and variants, usually) allow for different types of extremely high level abstraction.

There's no point differentiating, they're all different ways to do the same thing, which is to describe what a data type does, not how it does it. Aspects and Features are more powerful, but are also very rarely available or used.Parallel languages (Occam, UPC, Parlog, Erlang, Cilk, Fortran) have tools for creating parallel blocks of code.

Fortran and Cilk doe this by generating vector instructions where possible, except that Cilk uses the explicit parallelism model of the other three languages.Interpreted and byte-compiled languages have an intermediate layer between the code and the computer. The difference amounts to how much parsing is needed before a simulated instruction can be run.

Languages that have a heap (such as C and descendants) can use dynamic memory. Languages that are static, such as Occam, cannot.Almost all object-oriented languages support exception handling.

A few others do as well. Exceptions have a mixed reputation, but so does everything else.Functional languages (Erlang, Haskell) define everything as functions.

Not sure what the value is. Pun possibly intended.Stack based languages (Forth, Postscript, Factor) are the very lowest level of the third-generation languages, in the sense that all compiled languages on a classical style of microprocessor will compile into a stack based form of assembly.

Stack based languages thus expose the architecture and are the most basic to compile.LISP is a list-oriented language, but is otherwise a weapon of brain destruction.Formally verifiable languages (Haskell, Spark, Occam) are languages where the code can be checked against a mathematical model of what the software is intended to do.

Where such languages are guaranteed to halt in finite time, they are NOT Turing-Complete. Turing-Complete allows you to be sure the code does what you think it does, but expressly forbids you from knowing in the general case if the task will ever get done

------

As a former or current soldier, do you use military terms or lingo when you're with your family, or even civilian friends out of habit? What terms do you use most?

Iu2019ve gotten better over the years but Iu2019m also still close with my Army Brothers. Swearing is probably my biggest issue I have from military service. I still say things like u201cpop smokeu201d or u201cPOGu201d but most of my family and civilian friends know what it means now.

When I was a supervisor at a civilian job Iu2019d tell the guys to pop smoke when ever my bosses were around. POG means person other then grunt, and I only ever used this to describe other service members.Swearing on the other hand was my biggest issue, especially when put in a leadership position.

I learned to lead leading soldiers and as an NCO you give orders loud and dirty. Teaching my kids Cub Scout Troop was a real challenge. I had to constantly remind myself not to swear or use dirty words.

My second hardest time was when I started working as a police reserve. I was elected Platoon Sargent for my academy class and the instructor gave me a great deal of control.Being a combat veteran and former NCO I was in my late 30s while most recruits were early 20s.

I was older then all but two of the instructors. This would also be my first time leading females. Iu2019m a happily married man so that wasnu2019t a problem however my language was.

Rite after being elected PLT SGT in front of the instructors I asked my formation what they wanted. I could go full Army Infantry NCO or try being more political. My Platoon unanimously voted they wanted me to be myself.

I looked at the instructors that nodded in approval then I told my Platoon, shut your cock holsters and put your dick beaters at your side. Every one unfuck youu2019re self and get ready for inspection. My platoon generally enjoyed my military language but my Chief ran anytime Iu2019d talk.

Iu2019m now fully retired and donu2019t use military terms often. Around my military friends it comes out, but other then that Iu2019m pretty normal. My son has picked some things up u201cluckily not the dirty stuffu201d and I sometimes see him using it.

He tells his friends to pop smoke, move out and draw fire and things like that. He always loved trying to listen in on my phone calls with Army friends and then try to talk like us

------

In "The Godfather" (1972) why did Carlo Rizzi easily fall for Michael's lie at the end? Didn't he know that playing a role in Michael's brother's death and beating his sister increases his chances of being killed?

It had been a while, and Carlo thought all that was behind him, especially after Michael had been a godfather to his sonTo be honest, it was a pretty good plan. It wasnt the first time Carlo beat his wife. It wasnt the first time that Sonny intervened in his domestic affair.

Sonny only accidentally heard about the fight as Connies mother was distracted in the phone by crying kids. Sonny left impulsively, without prior plans and notice. Carlo did not necessarily know that Connie had a chat with Sonny and that Sonny was on his way to beat him up.

In his mind, that was a safe way to exculpate him.But he walked right into a trap. That was no accident.

There are no accidents of this magnitude. Someone gave up Sonny for sure. There would be repercussion, and someone had to be held responsible.

The most natural explanation would be that someone in Sonnys side saw Sonny leave and tipped off the Tattaglia family. But no one (except his mother, and potentially Tom Hagen) knew where Sonny was headed. This, Carlo did not know.

Carlo just presumed that the Corleones would think that someone from their side betrayed Sonny. Carlo was not close to the family to realize that nobody had been punished for Sonnys death (as Paulie was punished for giving up Vito). Everyone, except stupid Carlo, knew who was the traitor.

It was an open secret.Carlo grew more confident in his assumptions as no one ever questioned him. What he did not realize was that he was safe because Vito Corleone could not have his daughter widowed while he was alive.

(Remember how the movie started with Carlos wedding, and how important that day, and the relationship, was to Vito Corleone).Carlo should have run the moment Don Vito died. He probably suspected something might come up, and may have even pushed Connie to request Michael to be the godfather of their child.

Michael agreed to this, and Carlo must have thought that his relationship would be equally sacred to Michael and would grant him immunity.But Michael was simply keeping his enemies closer all along. Carlo was asked to confess, but the verdict was already made.

There was no way Carlo was walking away alive on the day the heads of all five families, Moe Green, Michaels bodyguard from Sicily, and everyone else who declared against the family were killed. That was the day all accounts were settled. Carlo was the last one.

He had nothing to gain by lying. Maybe, just maybe, he thought he had a shot if he confessed and pleaded. He did not fully know Michael