Reading through the various posts on school corporal punishment, and who got it and why, I have suddenly realised that in all my school days I never once witnessed a boy who wore glasses to be given a slippering or the cane. I wonder why that was? Could it be that the masters who weilded those disciplinary implements gained little or no satisfaction from applying their 'flexible friends' to the backside of a bespectacled youngster? Are there any of you out there who knows of such a case?
Sadly, I had 20/20 vision myself!

Made no difference in my schools, girl or boy, specs or not, got whacked as needed....

An interesting observation and I tend to agree that was the case at my senior school. The boy who wore glasses was usually thought of as a nerd so would not be regarded as ‘one of the lads’. He wouldn't be very good at sport and useless at fighting. He tended to listen to classical music and studied boring subjects like latin and greek. He would not have many friends and would compensate by becoming a swot and concentrating on his schoolwork rather than being part of any pranks so would be less likely to get the cane.

Thinking about it, I think you're right. We had one ultra nerd who never opened his mouth unless spoken to by a master, and sat with his arms folded the whole time! Today he'd be given therapy but in those days he was regarded as all and sundry as 'weird'. I remember one master seemed to be on a quest to whack him - he may have had a bet in the common room or somewhere. Anyway, as hard as he goaded this kid, the boy never wavered and the bet was lost!
I've often wondered how JH got on as an adult.

Nerds usually pass their A levels with flying colours. They go to Oxford or Cambridge where they continue to study dead languages and remain in the world of academia. They very often grow beards, become vegetarians and get involved in environmental issues. Absolutely no use at all to society.
…..and all because they wore glasses.

J

Unfortunately, your theory & those of Danny falls a little flat when it comes to me, though I did not start wearing glasses until age 13.

I wouldn't describe myself as an angel before then,just better at getting away with stuff. Afterwards, hormones,maturity or lack of it kicked in and I became a bolshie bastard from then until my last day.

I only got the cane once, but our code was two strikes & you are out-for good! That meant a 2nd caneable offence & you were not beaten again-expulsion instead! I can think of 2 other specs wearers who were caned, and one of these went on to be the only one of two 2nd-strikers in my time.

Another colleague, as it were, was one of two who left at 14 or 15 to start work to support the child they had fathered!

I agree that most specs wearers were suspiciously nerdy and treated as such by fellow pupils and teachers. However, it didn't always pay to tar us all with the same brush.

My headmaster found this out on my last day in July 1970,when deciding to expel me for the hell of it. If he hadn't gone on to call me a degenerate and attempted to frogmarch me out, he would never have found out that 4 eyes give you better powers of observation, when it comes to picking up hints from the TV.

I never planned this, but I'd noticed that right-handed boxers with an effective left fist often stopped opponents in their tracks. Also,short=range punches are more likely to connect and a site more effective.

Hence how 6ft & 16 stone sent 6ft 4 and 15 stone flying. One of the stupidiest things I ever did, but also one of the most satisfying after over 4 years of sadistic mental torture from HM!

Oh, and he wore glasses,too! And I never did get invited back to play for the old boys!!!!!


Steve

Now I come to think of it, JH didn't even wear glasses! Another theory ruined!

DANNY

I reckon Dennis the Menace & Walter the Softie have a lot to answer for with all this. much as I tried to model my self on Dennis.

The trick was possibly to only wear them in class & not at break time, etc & then people tended to see you as one of the lads.

What you then saw THEM as, was of course open to debate without the glasses!!!

I notice your namesake in Bash Street had Erbert as part of his gang from day 1, specs or not AND that Mrs Teacher and the Head also wear them. Talk about mixed messages!

I still do, by the way, and was vain enough to shell out £166 for the last pair, though I did get a cracking pair of prescription sunglasses free.


Steve

Fair enough Steve, but generalisations have to be made. I did use the word 'usually' - "The boy who wore glasses was usually thought of as a nerd...."
I accept that not all boys who wore glasses were nerds and smacking the headmaster clearly gives you a lot of street cred so 'good on yer'!
However, stereotypes exist and here is a still from the film 'Revenge of the Nerds' which you may have seen.

J(fj)

Actually, your generalisation isn't that wide of the mark and wouldn't have been in 1966-70, when I was at school & wearing glasses in class only. They were also in the beginning just for short-sightedness, ie can read books, but not blackboard without them.

Interestingly enough, we now have Arthur the Aardvark and Harry Potter as bespectacled cool role models. But how often do they misbehave? And, when they do, the sky falls in on their little world still, as it usually did with Minnie the Minx,Dennis etc.

Plus Ca Change,Plus C'est La Meme Chose, as Mimi might add & Rush once sang. I agree entirely with you about generalistaions. They do help nurse you through a troubled and illogical world and I'm as guilty of them every day, if not worse.

And, I rarely wore them at all from 19-24, by which time I'd buggered my eyesight up in the process, so have had them permanently for 30 years. Will try and find a suitably embarassing photo to post from that time-unless you,too, yearn for the return of loon pants, in which case nostalgia will rule again!


Steve

I think there was an inverse correlation between wearing glasses and the CP. Perhaps being slippered or caned was good for the eyes.

Well I guess I'm the exception that proves the rule. I did wear glasses, and I suppose I was a nerd. But it didn't stop be from getting slippered by prefects several times and caned by the headmaster once.

One of my slipperings was definitely for a nerdy offence - skipping an after-school house athletics practice. But the other slipperings were for non-nerdy behaviour such as pushing and shoving in assembly, and losing house points for not trying hard enough in Latin and French. And my caning was for the definitely un-nerdy offence of spitting.

Dave, if you were slippered for pushing and shoving during assembly and caned for spitting I am sorry to inform you that you do not qualify as a nerd.

In her book “fanboys and overdogs the language report” Susie Dent defines a Nerd as follows:-

Nerds: These are your typical social outcasts. The products of a childhood full of beatings at the hands of larger boys (or girls), Nerds are noticeable in their ability to find solace in the study of one subject, usually Latin or Greek. Nerds are also, almost always, true to their stereotype; skinny, awkward hairstyle, unfortunate dress-sense and usually gigantic spectacles perched on a bird-like face.

J

In my day, lads who spit and scratched were 'girlie's. Nerds came later so I'm not sure exacly what qualifications are necessary to call yourself one.

DAVE

You don't even qualify as a swot if you lost house points for not trying in Latin & French.

What a heinous offence-almost as bad as my Sarah's one detention-forgetting her DS apron & trying to pass off her chemistry coat as an acceptable substitute.

I was banned from house athletics evenings after 1 attempt at the right spirit-the kindest comment was trier, but not exactly athletic. They were clearly unable to differentiate in house systems between those who could have scored points for general knowledge, chess or helping tidy old ladies' gardens, all of which have their place in the great scheme of things.

Sorry about the philosophy, but Leonard Cohen's on at the moment! I'd say your were at least moderately cool at school,in fact, which the prefects seem to've envied.


Steve

Danny's original observation is broadly true as a generalisation but of course not the absolute rule he implies. (I got slippered at grammar school and I wore specs at the time. Can't remember whether I had them on at that moment.)

But the reason for it is surely not as "sinister" as he suggests. Is it not simply the case that the more studious kind of boy who was more likely to wear specs was also less likely to get into trouble at all? I can't really imagine a queue of specs-wearing boys who had misbehaved but who were being refused their deserved whacks just because of their appearance.

Don't know if you're interested in girls, but back when i received my one, quite unjust paddling, I (age 10/11) wore glasses. Got it from a guy too. Bastard! Now he's a double bastard. I'd quite forgotten I wore glasses -- relatively nerdy, thickish ones too, and i was new and foreign. F*#*&ing bastard prickface. I'd like to knee him in the balls if I ever met him again.

Sorry Big john -- not usually so vitriolic -- having fight with husband. Feel free to edit.

No edit is necessary. It is only foul language that is not tolerated at this Happy Circle.

I hope you are enjoying the video clips included for you at you tube.com and daily motion.com.

Does this count as fowl language...
I'll get me coat..........

You're just chicken, Mimi! Or an old hen. Which is it?

Whenever I read the contributions of mimi/jay and Danny, who, I understand has not renewed his subscription, I have an overwhelming feeling of despair.

It was just an ole chiken joke.......
nil desperandum carborundum illigitum est............