posted
I agree that is it important to know that is usually true and that many people don't even try. I think it is also important to realize that it isn't something everyone can just do without at least some help.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: :shrug: I don't know what to say beyond what I've already said. Anything else would just be repeating myself.
You say I should be explicit -- I'm not hinting around or suggesting anything. I meant what I said, and that's it.
Well since we pretty generally don't understand what you meant by the words you said, that's not particularly helpful. The only way I know of to determine whether or not I've understood someone is to rephrase what they've said and see if they agree that I understood their intent. If they don't, its very helpful to me if they will try to rephrase the original to help clarify their intent rather than getting snippy about being misunderstood.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:So what is it that keeps some kids from being bullied, or lets them turn the bullying around? Luck? Some action or attitude on their part?
All of the above?
Definitely all of the above. I was never successfully bullied in school, though I occasionally had bullies give it a shot. I largely avoided bullying and diffused it when attempts at it happened by being a pretty affable guy who completely ignored social cliques. I was on good enough terms with enough other students that most people didn't want to bully me, and those who did were generally afraid that if they did they'd either be ostracized from their social group or beaten up by people who liked me a lot.
That was great for me, but most of it was due to factors beyond my control. I was a genuinely kind person who was reasonably intelligent, fairly skilled socially, and moderately physically attractive. Those are four things that I really didn't have any control over (except, arguably, the social skills), and without them I'd have been up the same creek that many of my peers were.
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think even if kids are made aware that influencing their own emotions is possible, most of them would have no clue how to do it successfully.
I wonder if it can be taught without some kind of individualized therapy.
(I also wonder if the difference between those who control their own emotions and those who don't is a little bit more innate than a different level of cognitive/behavioral skill. How crucial and how immutable is aptitude?)
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: :shrug: I don't know what to say beyond what I've already said. Anything else would just be repeating myself.
You say I should be explicit -- I'm not hinting around or suggesting anything. I meant what I said, and that's it.
Well since we pretty generally don't understand what you meant by the words you said, that's not particularly helpful. The only way I know of to determine whether or not I've understood someone is to rephrase what they've said and see if they agree that I understood their intent. If they don't, its very helpful to me if they will try to rephrase the original to help clarify their intent rather than getting snippy about being misunderstood.
Concise responses, I think, can often sound snippy in writing when they don't mean to be and wouldn't if we were hearing them instead.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For us, growing up, bullying wasn't much of an issue, but that was for cultural factors that I don't know are easily replicable.
Basically, I grew up in a culture (for boys) where fighting was an accepted way of determining respect and social hierarchy. I have an inherent distaste for weakness inculcated into me.
Bullies set that off, so we became sort of bullies of bullies. If someone was willing to stand up to once and fight you in a fair fight, that was the end of it. You kept picking on him after that and other people would be lining up to fight you, and we were the ones who didn't need to pick on people weaker than us.
It was by no means a perfect system but it was one that instilled respect for each other (although largely based on a limited definition of someone "acting like a man") into the people inside it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blue collar, white Catholic neighborhood in Philly 80s-mid 90s. I think it had a lot to do with going to an all male high school as well.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting. It sounds a lot like the culture that Geoffrey Canada found himself in when his family moved to The Bronx in the 50s (as recounted in his Fist Stick Knife Gun).
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not really. Using a weapon would be considered cowardly. Also, violence wasn't an ever present thing. What I'm describing is maybe more akin to dueling.
Honestly, I think how I grew up had more in common with the idealized 50s that certain sections of the country seems to believe in than with inner city ghettos.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The culture that he describes as being in place when he moved to The Bronx didn't involve the use of weapons. It was the introduction of weapons that destabilized that culture, if I recall correctly.
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: For us, growing up, bullying wasn't much of an issue, but that was for cultural factors that I don't know are easily replicable.
Basically, I grew up in a culture (for boys) where fighting was an accepted way of determining respect and social hierarchy. I have an inherent distaste for weakness inculcated into me.
Bullies set that off, so we became sort of bullies of bullies. If someone was willing to stand up to once and fight you in a fair fight, that was the end of it. You kept picking on him after that and other people would be lining up to fight you, and we were the ones who didn't need to pick on people weaker than us.
It was by no means a perfect system but it was one that instilled respect for each other (although largely based on a limited definition of someone "acting like a man") into the people inside it.
Are you saying that in your middle school, there were no outsiders who everyone picked on?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was just going off the Amazon description, which is likely not fully accurate. It sounded like they were all using knives on each other.
The neighborhood I grew up in kinda fell apart (a lot of the people moved away) and this culture doesn't really exist there anymore. I think it is fragile, where introducing people using weapons or an influx of people who don't understand it or view manhood differently would disturb and possibly destroy how it works.
It was the acceptance of violence, but only to a certain point, along with the high value put on respect or a certain sort that was probably the central thing.
---
To be sexist, bullying, especially saying nasty things about people or trying to sabotage them seems like such a girl thing to do. I think that our culture has gotten to a point where these sort of indirect, open ended method of approaching people you have disagreements with is seen as much better than an out and out fight, which is direct and, if done in certain ways, brings the issue to a close.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you saying that in your middle school, there were no outsiders who everyone picked on?
I also grew up in a very homogenized environment. It's hard to say if a true "outsider" showed up, what my reaction to them would have been. But in my experience in that environment, I (and others) would have beaten the crap out of them if they did.
I got into fights in high school specifically with that purpose.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Physical bullying is manly, but talking bad about someone is cowardly and girly?
I knew people who thought that fighting was the way to go, but to me it was not the right thing, even if you could win. Throwing your weight around because you can doesn't make you right, clear the air, or prove your point. It just means you can beat me up.
And it's a good thing that I didn't have access to a gun, because after going though some of the things I went though I probably would have killed someone. I was hit with a car, with dirt bikes, snowmobiles, threatened with knives, and beat up.
All for not wanting to take a free sample of pot and smoke it. And for not letting them intimidate me into becoming something I didn't want to be.
I actually grabbed a guy by the inside of his shirt and jumped off a stairway balcony at one point. I figured if I hurt one of them bad enough the rest would either escalate to something I could prove in a court of law (by that time they were being watched by the school and law enforcement) or they would leave me alone. I didn't even care if I got hurt, or died, myself.
I just wanted it to be over.
Standing up to a bully only works if he is a coward. Not all of them are cowards. Some of them just like hurting people.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: To be sexist, bullying, especially saying nasty things about people or trying to sabotage them seems like such a girl thing to do. I think that our culture has gotten to a point where these sort of indirect, open ended method of approaching people you have disagreements with is seen as much better than an out and out fight, which is direct and, if done in certain ways, brings the issue to a close.
I agree that your first example sounds very fifth grade girl, but your counter proposal sounds very fifth grade boy, and I'm not seeing how it's a productive way of settling any question other than "is this new kid manly enough that we shouldn't pick on him or let other people do so."
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw, I think it depends on how you see the problems that kids have with each other. From my perspective, they usually come from a lack of respect on one or both sides. Fighting, in the context I'm talking about, addresses this respect issue.
It's not all about winning. Losing a fight but standing up for yourself like a man and fighting well for your ability was something that got you respect.
There was also a strong aspect of a dominance hierarchy to it as well. If someone was bothering you, it was likely that they didn't respect you. Fighting them, especially if you won, established that you were someone that they should respect and also that if they kept bothering, you could just beat them up again.
I'm not saying that this is a perfect solution, but it worked, more or less, in dealing with the conflicts that inevitably arose.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Physical bullying is manly, but talking bad about someone is cowardly and girly?
I have no idea where you are getting that from. I started out talking about specifically how bullying was regarded as not manly.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since I'm sure you see the less than perfect aspects, I'm not going to point them out.
I really mis-addressed your post anyway -- I think part of your larger point was that we now punish kids for using the "boy" way of addressing difference and not the "girl" way, yes? If so, I agree with you, but I don't think it's because we as a society think that indirect sabotage is "much better" than an out and out fight, it's just a lot harder to make/enforce specific rules about.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit: They are not equivalent in terms of levels of maturity, but then even as adults if a person insults another person's character, the level of maturity in owning up to that is still not equal to the person being insulted refusing to play that game. It's never going to be equal.
But a person being bullied while perhaps unable to maturely address the bullying directly should still be expected to contact parents, teachers, administrators, and ask for help.
The bullied may not stop the bully no matter how mature he/she is, but they are still taking responsibility for their actions.
I wish I could have worded that better but, I don't think I have the patience or time right now.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was a very shy kid. My avoidance of bullying had very little to do with my lack of self confidence. My father taught me things that I was afraid to use. The same things my mother protested as things a ten year old shouldn't know. My father showed me where to stick a knife to kill silently. He taught me how to defend myself. Knowing how to defend yourself doesn't jive with junior high school fisticuffs. I was very shy and timid. I talked my way out of fights. Fighting was life or death. I'll sound like a coward to save your drunk ass life.
I've taught my children the same. My daughter was pushed to the ground and picked on. The boy who did it to her warns the others......"She's a girl who hurts boys."
She knows more than most how to defend herself. She won't do it unless she absolutely has to. Bullies are mean children. My children know how to defend themselves. Words won't make them do what they know how to do. They'll take the abusive language to avoid hurting the abuser. Bullies are to be pitied.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Physical bullying is manly, but talking bad about someone is cowardly and girly?
I have no idea where you are getting that from. I started out talking about specifically how bullying was regarded as not manly.
Fighting is bullying, unless both want to fight. It's a physical example of it. All fighting does is prove who is faster or stronger, or who has more experience in fighting.
See, I had a different view. I won't fight unless I am willing to kill someone. Beating me to a pulp only makes me that more likely to do so. I don't start fights, and I try to walk away from them when possible.
But the second you swing your fist at me, you ARE risking my life. I once watched a guy get hit one time, fall down and hit the back of his head on a curb. He died.
I don't see a lot of difference, in theory, between beating the crap out of someone and shooting them. Guns just make fighting more dangerous, but they don't change what the fundamental objective of a fight is, to force someone to yield due to physical threats or pain.
Not that I recommend carrying a gun, or using one. They are a last resort, for sure. But if someone beats me up, the next time we meet I'll damn well be carrying one. I don't start fights, but I'll end one before I let anyone hurt me again.
I once told a bully he better kill me, because the next time I'd be trying to kill him. He thought it was funny until I took us both over a balcony.
posted
I'm afraid I have to put some of the blame onto the administrators. The article describes that this girl's face was scribbled out on pictures on the school's walls. That's pretty hard for teachers or administrators to not see, so they must have known. At a good school, even if teachers were not initally aware of the perpetrators, it should have launched a schoolwide alert to determine who it was: look out for this girl, someone's got it in for her.
It sounds like they explicitly knew, though, and just forgot.
However, if I was a parent and I knew, I would probably pursue this case to the bitter end, including moving my child against her express wishes to a different school.
The schools where I am added bullying-- in all its forms-- to the list of suspendable offenses in 2008. Violence and sexual assault are on the expulsion list.
I was never bullied, despite having a lot of reason to be (geeky, poorly dressed, socially awkward, early developer etc.) I think it was because I simply did not view myself as a target of bullies or even realise how geeky, poorly dressed and different I was until I started to change my image as an older teenager and young adult.
I remember a few incidents of jibes that, looking back, could have been an attempt to initiate something, but I remember-- with some embarrassment-- that I had some excessively geeky responses because I simply didn't get that I was a possible target.
But this is not the usual experience and children, even fifteen year olds, are not responsible for figuring out how to stop systematic bullying with no adult intervention.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I once told a bully he better kill me, because the next time I'd be trying to kill him. He thought it was funny until I took us both over a balcony.
I landed on top.
So you're actually supporting the use of violence to end bullying.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bullying the "bullies" is definitely a lower kind of law. It is very easy and very common for someone who goes around attacking people to imagine that he is the "good" kind of violent monster.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Bullying the "bullies" is definitely a lower kind of law. It is very easy and very common for someone who goes around attacking people to imagine that he is the "good" kind of violent monster.
Going around attacking people does not necessarily make one a 'violent monster' good or bad. That is an accurate description, after all, of police officers, boxers, and soldiers depending on context. Context matters.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I once told a bully he better kill me, because the next time I'd be trying to kill him. He thought it was funny until I took us both over a balcony.
I landed on top.
So you're actually supporting the use of violence to end bullying.
Once all other avenues have been tried. Including involving the authorities (and dealing with the loss of face that comes with that), running away, and avoiding the people involved.
It's one thing to be made fun of, and pushed around a bit. Once it goes PAST that, it isn't bullying, it's violence, plain and simple.
I had tried to let the system take care of it for literally years. Violence was the last possible reaction possible, other than literally letting this guy put me in the hospital or kill me.
We aren't talking about saying bad things about me, or pushing me around in the halls. We are talking about sneaking into my house, attacking me with weapons, and terrorizing my family.
I swear to God that if one more person said "Boys will be boys" to me I would have hit them myself. I heard that from parents, police officers, other kids....pretty much any adult that heard about it in passing.
I don't call trying yo run someone over bullying. I call it attempted murder.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I once told a bully he better kill me, because the next time I'd be trying to kill him. He thought it was funny until I took us both over a balcony.
I landed on top.
So you're actually supporting the use of violence to end bullying.
Once all other avenues have been tried. Including involving the authorities (and dealing with the loss of face that comes with that), running away, and avoiding the people involved.
It's one thing to be made fun of, and pushed around a bit. Once it goes PAST that, it isn't bullying, it's violence, plain and simple.
I had tried to let the system take care of it for literally years. Violence was the last possible reaction possible, other than literally letting this guy put me in the hospital or kill me.
We aren't talking about saying bad things about me, or pushing me around in the halls. We are talking about sneaking into my house, attacking me with weapons, and terrorizing my family.
I swear to God that if one more person said "Boys will be boys" to me I would have hit them myself. I heard that from parents, police officers, other kids....pretty much any adult that heard about it in passing.
I don't call trying to run someone over with a care, no matter what the age of the driver, bullying. I call it attempted murder.
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: We aren't talking about saying bad things about me, or pushing me around in the halls. We are talking about sneaking into my house, attacking me with weapons, and terrorizing my family.
That's not bullying, that's stalking and assault with a deadly weapon. If you did kill that guy, I'd call it justified.
Like Rakeesh said, context matters.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Bullying the "bullies" is definitely a lower kind of law. It is very easy and very common for someone who goes around attacking people to imagine that he is the "good" kind of violent monster.
Going around attacking people does not necessarily make one a 'violent monster' good or bad. That is an accurate description, after all, of police officers, boxers, and soldiers depending on context. Context matters.
Your exceptions are ridiculous. Don't point to institutionalized exceptions to pretend what I said isn't true for the self-appointed meta-bullies.
The people who proudly trump how they are the vigilante bullies to the bullies are self-deluded - they are monsters, and "I'm the good kind" that is the fiction they tell themselves to imagine themselves to still be good.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your exceptions are ridiculous. Don't point to institutionalized exceptions to pretend what I said isn't true for the self-appointed meta-bullies.
My exceptions were ridiculous to point out that your description was vague to the point of uselessness.
quote: The people who proudly trump how they are the vigilante bullies to the bullies are self-deluded - they are monsters, and "I'm the good kind" that is the fiction they tell themselves to imagine themselves to still be good.
Who are we talking about here, anyway? The people now bullying the bullies online with threats and such? Well, I'd certainly agree they're wrong but perhaps not monsters. Other than that, I don't know who you're talking about.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Context matters was pretty much MY point as well. I don't think that violence works most of the time, except as a last resort.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why has this thread been so focused on physical violence? Physical violence, while regrettable, is not the real issue with bullying. Children don't commit suicide as a result of being pushed around. The issue here is when a child faces depression due to the actions of the social group around him or her.
Everyone here is talking about how to stop physical violence, but how do you stop emotional bullying? How do you stop a group of people from using the internet and tools like Facebook to make it impossible for a child to make any friends? The physical violence is much more likely a result of the child being ostracized, rather than the cause. Does punching the girl who started the rumor that one is a slut do anything?
The advent of the internet allows rumors and slander to cause much more damage than they did in the past. Isolation is the real danger here - its what causes depression to emerge. When a child feels that he has no one to turn it, it manifests itself in depression. So why does it matter what actions a person needs to take to not be beaten up for lunch money? That's largely irrelevant to the bigger issue.
Posts: 76 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was not limiting my definition of bullying to physical violence. I completely agree with you, Jenos. There is such thing as intentional emotional violence.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The real question is, did she suffer depression as a result of their actions or did they target the depressed weird kid. Of course it only makes the situation worse. I would wager, the depression and lack of self confidence came before the bullying.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did anyone else notice that the reporter used the word 'tortuous' instead of 'torturous'? Silly Brits, they really need to learn English.
Sorry, just trying to lighten up the mood. Seriously though, this is a horrible situation. That having been said, I don't really understand this anti-bullying push. I was the subject of bullying, but I am still opposed to legal intervention. The reason is inconsistency. That is to say, if one can be charged as a minor due to someone committing suicide as a result of one's behavior, then we ought to examine all suicides and see what influenced that individual's decision. If it turns out that it was caused by, say, negative actions by one's coworkers, then ought those coworkers to be charged with murder or something of the sort? This seems clearly absurd, yet we entertain the thought with minors. In all other cases, minors are generally ascribed less responsibility, not greater. Why is it different here?
All that having been said, the school is full of twits.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The unintended consequences of laws based upon good intentions. Some people vote with feelings and some with logic. Will your grandchildren have to take their shoes off when entering an airport? What if 911 occurred in a football stadium with bombs? There wouldn't be a TSA, we'd have and NFLSA.
Bullies get prosecuted, speech will be criminalized. It will be illegal to post mean words on facebook.
Someone's words lead to someone else's action and the speaker is liable. There are nutjobs on the right and left that are inspired by words.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Bullies get prosecuted, speech will be criminalized. It will be illegal to post mean words on facebook.
Yup, that's what'll happen. Not a slippery slope at all.
The thing about hacks like yourself is that slippery slopes only ever seem to work when they're opposition slippery slopes. Death panels work, for example, but putting old people on cat food doesn't work.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly who is charging them with murder, and to what extent is that charge linked to their comments on Facebook?
Hack.
ETA: I'll be interested to see how you weasel your way out of this, malanthrop. Will you ignore this post completely? Suggest you were misinterpreted? Claim that that's what some people want to charge them with?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The bullies weren't charged with murder. They were charged with criminal harassment. The decision to charge them was undoubtedly made because of the eventual consequences. Arguably, the crime was the same regardless of the suicide. Perhaps, these students should have been charged earlier, before the death occurred and that should be the standard. But that is a different discussion. Either way, the kids did harass the girl and so the charge is appropriate. A charge of harassment is not the same thing as a charge of murder.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Exactly who is charging them with murder, and to what extent is that charge linked to their comments on Facebook?
Hack.
ETA: I'll be interested to see how you weasel your way out of this, malanthrop. Will you ignore this post completely? Suggest you were misinterpreted? Claim that that's what some people want to charge them with?
You are correct. They were charged with "violations of civil rights, criminal harassment, and stalking". Felony charges.
The teens will be felons if they lose. It isn't murder, but a felony nonetheless.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ahh, I see. One part completely ignoring the post, one part implying that what you said was in the neighborhood of what is accurate, when it's pretty plain it isn't.
Here's a question: should someone be permitted, legally, to continually insult someone on their own piece of the Internet? You're not permitted to mail insults to someone's physical mailbox if they object.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: That is to say, if one can be charged as a minor due to someone committing suicide as a result of one's behavior, then we ought to examine all suicides and see what influenced that individual's decision. If it turns out that it was caused by, say, negative actions by one's coworkers, then ought those coworkers to be charged with murder or something of the sort? This seems clearly absurd, yet we entertain the thought with minors. In all other cases, minors are generally ascribed less responsibility, not greater. Why is it different here?
Is this a response to the actual charges or to the sentiment that the kids should be charged for the girl's death? If the latter, I think most would agree with you. If the former, note that the charges are for specific actions that are clearly criminal on their own. The girl's suicide simply helped bring them to light.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a bit of both. I suspect that the reason they are being charged is because of the girl's death, and they would not have been charged if not for the suicide, even if authorities were well aware of the situation. This implies that the real reason they are being charged is the girl's death, despite the actions being illegal and mala in se.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
