Good kids don't "fight". It's so ingrained into the head of the good kids that they are terrified of fighting even to defend themselves.
Thus, bullies get to bully with no fear. There's no consequence. Whereas when a weaker kid fights back, even if the bully is strong enough to "win" the battle, he still gets hit in the mouth and does not like it. Bullies much prefer low-hanging fruit that doesn't fight back.
My children, when school age (maybe not 1st grade, but certainly by junior high), will be sat down and have the following explained to them:
"You are allowed to defend yourself. You will avoid physical conflict whenever possible, but should you ever be physically threatened or subject to ongoing torment, you have the GREEN LIGHT to use physical force to protect yourself, OR to assist a friend who is unable to protect themselves."
"You may get in trouble with your school. THIS IS OK. Your well-being is more important than their rules. If you get suspended for three days, then I'll take three days off work and we'll keep up with your studies. I will be on your side. Do not let concern over the school rules stop you at all from defending yourself."
"However, you will never use force to do anything but protect yourself or your friend. If I find that YOU have been the aggressor, I will smite you."
I'll probably need to work on that speech a bit between now and then, but you get the idea. :)
I was lucky. I was never the small or weak one. Even still, I can think back to a couple of situations where fear of parental response prevented me from protecting myself as well as I should have. My children will have it made known to them that they will not be "assumed guilty" when a situation comes up where they physically defend themselves. No aggression towards others will be tolerated, but they will be trusted to properly use their discretion, and until they prove themselves guilty, they will be assumed innocent.
The reason I ask is that I think I'm a bit older than the average HN reader (pushing 40). When I went to school, fights were certainly not encouraged, but the occasional lunchtime or after-school fight was not at all unusual. And there was definitely bullying.
It wasn't any kind of indoctrination that kept their victims from fighting back. It was pure and simple fear! Most of the bullies were either physically larger than their victims, or just had a way of projecting an aggressive, intimidating presence that had most of the other kids reluctant to throw down with them.
Now I agree that a good punch was (and probably still is) a good individual tactic for getting a bully to leave you alone. What I disagree with is what I believe is your assertion that it's some kind of recent policy change that makes bullying possible or causes it to flourish in some way.
A policy of allowing or even encouraging physical violence isn't going to end or discourage bullying. Human behavior isn't that simple, real world solutions aren't that black and white.
Bullying didn't suddenly "spring" into existence when schools started earnestly preventing violence. Bullying has existed longer than human history. You see it in all human societies, and all even in animals.
Is it true? It's my outsider's perception that there is some truth to it. It's my perception as the husband of a schoolteacher that it is. But my eyes cannot gaze upon all the schools in the country. However, the combination of the anecdotal evidence of my wife's school combined with the national media suggests to me that I am not far off. (Even though I recognize the media's fondness of latching onto a story that is guaranteed to draw attention)
Nowhere did I state that this trend has caused bullying. I am only saying that it has affected bullying.
I am also not necessarily putting a timeline on when things changed. I simply don't have the data for that. But I am looking at schools as they look in 2010 and I am seeing a lot of examples/stories of bullies operating with impunity. And it seems at least to be much more so than in my school days.
The one thing I can state as an absolute fact is that bullying is an extremely hot topic among teachers and school boards. I have to think that there is more than just bully status quo behind that.
I was bullied a ton as a kid, and I was always told to "tell and adult", or just ignore it, but this guy is right - there are some bullies who want to hurt you, and you ignoring it or telling and adult just makes them want to hurt you even more. I learned to change the way I did some things so as not to attract the attention of bullies, etc... and solve some problems non-violently, but there absolutely was a time when I had to have enough of a back-bone to make a solid decision about when enough was enough. That fixed the remaining problems - but I still look back at that as an experience I could have solved much sooner if I had just been smarter about it. The bullies shouldn't have done what they did, but it was my problem and I needed to deal with it.
He's not claiming otherwise. He's explaining how he's going to keep his kid from being bullied.
> schools started earnestly preventing violence
Assumes facts not in evidence..... (A policy isn't a result.)
> What I disagree with is what I believe is your assertion that it's some kind of recent policy change that makes bullying possible or causes it to flourish in some way.
The policy change is that bully's victims will be punished if they resist? It lets bullies say "go along or the school will come down on you". Why do you think that such a change doesn't encourage bullies? (The policy change doesn't affect the bully's punishment.)
Yes, there were fights before, but since there are still fights.... (Under the old scheme, one party might not have been punished for a fight. Under the new scheme, both parties are, but since the instigator wasn't deterred by the threat of being punished in the past, it's unclear why you think that the changed policy, which mandates punishment for someone else, would deter the instigator.)
The 3rd or 4th day of high school, I got into a fight. It was a proper fist fight, we went to the ground and a teacher separated us. We got pardoned because ours was the first fight of the school year - I'm not sure why they pardoned us, maybe it was because we were friends and covered each others asses or maybe it was naivety but the fight happened in front of like 50 kids.
What happened? We both got a 'reputation' because everybody knew about our fight, no bullies targeted us - but we were both complete and utter nerds.
It took another couple of years before anyone targeted me for bullying, but by this time I was in a strong group of friends. We had a lot of camaraderie when it came to anyone insulting our group. We fought with each other, got into actual fist fights, but there was hell would anyone outside our group start a fight. The guy was a jockish type bully, utterly moronic (he'd failed everything for basically 3 years) and more importantly had cronies. He targeted me, but him and 2 others weren't a match for 12 kids, 4 of which (myself included) were the base of our winning tug-of-war team (5 years in a row total domination) even though we were the lightest team in the school. To put it simply, we kicked the crap out of them - no one went too far we just put them to the ground and kept them there.
What happened? I didn't get bullied again in highschool. We did, however, all get dragged into the headmasters's office with all the deputy-heads of the school because they thought we were a gang. Interestingly, none of us got a suspension, or even a detention for that. We silenced the bullies, I don't think one of them got in a fight for the rest of the year.
I was never a bully, I never called anyone names. The few times I had been in a fight outside of bullying, I never threw a punch. I got 1 kid suspended for a week and given an expulsion warning, because I didn't throw a punch back.
I would personally be okay if my kid responded to a bully with his fist. But I agree, hell-hath-no-fury like a pissed off dad if I found out my kid was a bully.
- Attempt to walk away from verbal abuse.
- If it gets physical, fight like hell until the threat stops, then walk away.
With all the highlighting of bullying recently, it's reminds me that there could easily be a different dynamic here. Kids are smart and adapt to rules. If they can control someone with accusations of bullying, they will do so. Remember that being a bully isn't about size it's about abusive intent.
Once I got a warning (I literally dented a gym locker with his head, to the coaches amusement), the other time an in school suspension (picked up kid, threw into chalkboard), but both stopped the harassment. The other kid may have been punished too, but don't honestly care: As they were then leery of me, I was then no longer constantly harassed by them. The point isn't to "win" by getting them punished by the administration and reforming them from their bullying ways; it's to assert "I am not the lowest status guy, go find someone else to screw with"
I was hardly picked on in school because I'd just ignore any teasing... and the first time I let it get to me I stabbed the bully (in class, in front of the teacher) with a pencil and sent him to the doctor.
I got off with just a chat to the headmaster... not even a very stern chat, because the staff all liked me as a good student and disliked the bully because he was a known bully. Doing the same thing now would probably lead to expulsion and charges of aggravated assault. If I had a child today I'd be telling them to make sure they drop the pencil first; using fists would probably work nearly as well, and a suspension for fighting on your school records means nothing in the real world.
Personally I would advice that you do whatever you can to avoid a fight, but if you must fight you go until the other person is incapacitated or you get separated (in school this happens really quick anyway). Once you start a fight all further reluctance has to go out the window or you're going to get hurt.
"THIS IS OK. Your well-being is more important than their rules. If you get suspended for three days, then I'll take three days off work and we'll keep up with your studies. I will be on your side."
That said, I would outline this with a child subject to ongoing torment. I would not recommend brawling any time someone starts just anything as a possible once-off.
But I definitely agree that counseling proper discretion is critical. I think most "good kids" understand where the lines are. The metaphorical kid in my head is reluctant to use force even with the "green light". For a kid who might be more inclined to "brawl", a different tact may well be warranted.
I was bullied in the early years of high school (age 13-14 mostly). I didn't really think of it at the time, but the worst of it probably stopped around about the same time that I grabbed a guy around the neck and dragged him to the ground.
And when I did get in trouble at school for fighting back, I didn't get in trouble at home because my parents knew I wasn't the instigator.
This is purely anecdotal and based on what I saw and did, but in an environment like that, it seems to me that escalation is only a problem if you don't escalate quickly enough. If I ended up in a fight (and I probably could have resolved a lot of conflicts without fighting, but I had that perfect combination of arrogance and insecurity that plagues the teenage mind), the problems continued only if I lost easily. Some of the best advice my mother gave me was "You can at least get a sandwich if they got a meal." (Other hits from mom: "The secret ingredient is always more butter." A stout lady, most of her advice was either directly about food or used a food analogy.) If I won, or if I managed to hit hard enough in the process of losing, I'd get no more trouble, except in one pathological case. Being unskilled but kind of big, I was often able to hit hard enough; if I have anything to say about it, my kids are going to log plenty of hours in a boxing gym.
> unless he pulls a knife
I carry a knife nowadays, after being in enough situations that came close enough to turning ugly that I wished I had one. I think, on general principal, that it's good for everyone to carry a weapon. A distant relative of mine who was born in the town we moved to had told me that when he was younger, in the 1940s and '50s, everyone had a gun in their jacket, "and you could tip your hat and be polite, or take turns shooting at each other." There's something to that, I think, in adult society. If there are no easy targets, if anyone you try to mug/terrorize/rape/attack/etc. can potentially end your life, then society is its own deterrent to crime. There are always irrational actors, of course, but if the crazy guy has a weapon, I want a weapon, too.
California Education code section 48915:
(a) Except as provided in subdivisions (c) and (e), the
principal or the superintendent of schools shall recommend the expulsion of a pupil for any of the following acts committed at school or at a school activity off school grounds, unless the principal or superintendent finds that expulsion is inappropriate, due to the particular circumstance:
(1) Causing serious physical injury to another person, except in self-defense.
(... the rest snipped ....)
Note three things:
1) "Recommend for expulsion" is not equivalent to "actual expulsion"
2) The emphasized (by me) self-defense exception.
3) "serious physical injury" does not include fighting that does not result in serious injury.
Fighting most certainly does happen on California school campuses, and they are not all getting expelled.
It likely made me LESS likely to strike back.
There are always consequences, failure to prevent bullying, failure to check payback. Failure if you do nothing. The payback pattern is culturally prevalent but flawed.  The payback pattern might work but it escalates violence. There are better ways that allow you to hack people and their behaviour to get at the root cause at a higher level than the individual. The approach can be top down or bottom-up, it doesn't matter as long as the level of violence is reduced. This is also the inherent weakness of the solution, but it holds more promise for the greater good than payback.
QED, the cycle repeats.
 Chris Bullock, "Payback out of control in Central Australia" http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/12/3064586.htm
Not all violence is payback. Defending against a Bully is one example of this. Defending yourself physically in an altercation is a violent behaviour but it is not retaliation or revenge. And as the personal anecdotes on this page reveal frequently stems the cycle of violence.
Now if you wait for days after and take revenge against the Bully then yes the violence will likely escalate. But self-defense is an entirely different thing.
My kids have been taught basic self-defense and should they ever be forced into a physical altercation have my full blessing to take whatever means are necessary to ensure they come out of the experience the victor.
Bullies thrive on the easy victim not defending yourself won't change this.
I'm really trying to look beyond the symptom and look at the root causes. Read the article I cited to see that this is not just a problem for the targeted individual but whole groups as well.
"... Bullies thrive on the easy victim not defending yourself won't change this ..."
Bullies thrive in environments where bulling is tolerated. Change the culture to make it bully-proof ~ http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/201011/r671527_4889232.jpg out than just letting having to expect kids to bear the brunt of inaction. Individual action maybe warranted, it's too much of a problem for individuals. Group action is needed as well.
If you think about HN for a moment advising every user to read & re-read http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html and prepare for an eventual verbal stoush. You defend yourself well using combinations of DH0 to DH6. The attacker moves to a less prepared target. Instead of relying on just individual users the HN community (users & code) fight back to enforce civility. The same ideas can be applied to bullies and targets, organisations and groups of people.
I guess if Bobby Bully is putting beans in your pants you can try your karate kid routine on him. Maybe Eye of The Tiger will start playing and after you make him cry by ballet kicking him in the nose you and Elisabeth Shue can go share a milkshake at Pop's and then make out at the drive in. But in real life Jesus and Jose and their 20 cousins and homies just show up after school and steal all your clothes, your bike, your money and throw you into the dumpster.
I guess I don't ever really believe these stories, because whenever i've seen someone fight back it just turned into a drawn out war, not some fairytale DeGrassi afterschool special outcome where the bully "learned his place"
I went to school at a suburb of Chicago where two friends died by being shot by gang members (Latin Kings), a kid that sat in front of me in Spanish murdered his girlfriend and went to prison, and drug deals were common in the hallways. But standing up to bullies was still better than backing down.
That said, the gang members were rarely if ever the bullies; not unless they suspected you were in a rival gang. The bullies were the kids that wanted a power trip, mainly the Seniors and mainly the sports guys.
If you give in you're doomed to be giving up your money or whatever again and again and again. You fight back, and that's usually going to be the end of it. People that fight back aren't fun; the weak ones that cry and give you stuff, that's where the fun is. The bullies want a reward with little effort. The gangs usually have a personal vendetta against you, your family, your different gang, your race, or something else. That's a whole different issue and one that's not dealt with in the same simple way.
Don't confuse gangs and bullies, they're two very different beasts.
"[I]n real life Jesus and Jose and their 20 cousins and homies just show up ..."
Jesus and Jose? Homies? Just. Stop.
Was it really necessary to inject some sort of pathetic, dogwhistle racial component into this? Why are you trying to cast a universal problem like bullying into a phenomenon where the scary minorities are picking on white kids?
Is locking the skinny kid in a locker until he pisses himself real bullying?
Is one kid holding another one down while a second one punches him real bullying?
It may not be guns, knives and chains, but the suffering is real. Also, what makes this kind of middle-class bullying worse is that
A) it's not expected -- it's different from the rest of these kids' lives, which are non-violent
B) educated middle-class parents give their kids bad advice like "don't fight back, violence doesn't solve anything".
I'm as surprised as you are that it's #1 on HN - I posted it to my blog for my readers, I didn't think it'd get submitted as a top level post or rise up the frontpage.
That said, everything on my end is real - I was quoting another author who said he was bullied quite badly, and his story sounds true but I can't confirm that.
> It reads like some fat kid ender's game revenge fantasy.
Eh, there's no need to be nasty, that doesn't add to the conversation. The entry is all true. Plenty of people here know me, I can run my schools and dates by someone if anyone really cares. Good luck to you.
That said, all of the "I was about to beat up a mob boss in Hong Kong because I'm so cool like that" was over the top (i.e. probably fake).
And, the bullies actually do know how to fight.
Actually, for me, being nice worked out just right. After some time, the few bullies that bothered me found themselves enemies of the school, including some other bullies. Serves them right.
Talking alone does almost nothing. Now if you defend yourself and then treat the bully like a human being and even try to be a friend you might make some headway.
When you suggest defending yourself, and then trying to be helpful in making the bully no longer a bully, that's a completely different strategy than what others are suggesting, one I wouldn't mind seeing tried out more! What others are suggesting is just beat the bully and now he's someone else's problem.
While I may have educated my children in how to defend themselves. I have also taught them that every individual has value. My hope is that they understand the aggressor is also valuable enough treat with respect.
I guess not all schools are the same. There is no way this would happen in any school I went to. Such school wouldn't probably even exist for a long time. Tbh, if such incident happened more than once, it would probably end up on national news. Then again, I'm not in US. Sure, there were bullies, but what you describe is just as completely foreign concept as your experience is to me.
I suffered 5 years of bullying at school; and tried everything to get it to stop, without success.
Until one day I just got fed up, walked up to the main tormentor in class and, unprovoked, hit him really hard in the mouth (I think I broke his nose, I'm not sure). Was in weeks of trouble (with the staff) :) but once that was out of the way no one touched me again.
I've never outright recommended this approach to anyone; and indeed it's probably not the right thing to do all the time. But some sort of short-sharp-shock can work just as well (so... barging them to the ground etc.) as long as it is sufficiently hard.
Nothing changed until I started fighting back in 10th grade. A few fights later, along with a suspension I actually earned this time, and I never had anymore problems.
But I also learned another interesting bit of bully psychology: they tease EVERYBODY, especially their friends. So tease them back. I discovered sometimes the supposed bully is just goofing around and this is how they relate to people.
Thirdly I discovered a simpler approach thanks to punk rock ethos: Don't even give a fuck about what other people think of you and let them know you don't give a fuck.
So I'd stick with the hitting. I don't think people understand much else until they mature a little past grade 8-ish mentality.
Come to think of it, shit, he really wasn't tough at all. Going down on the second punch and coming back up dazed? Good thing (for him) I didn't know how to throw a punch...
From my observation, every adult knows this is the solution. But not all of them has the balls to tell their kid :)
It's nice being nice, but sometimes it does not work.
If you've already laid the I-wont-stand-to-be-bullied ground work with the "fight back once" thing he'll get your stuff back and none of them will have any fun.
Folks who do have experience pretty much all agree.
I. flipped. out.
All I remember was walking very calmly towards the quarterback and punching him in the face repeatedly, he tried to hit me but I grabbed his arm and bent him over backwards and just kept punching until he started bleeding from his eyebrow. His friends pulled me off and then threw me down and started to kick me, but it was broken up. Sure I got suspended, but that group never picked on me again.
One of them straight up asked me: "I'm coming at your base with two rockvees and an ambo - you've got a Jarmen, two scorps, and a quad. What do you do?"
In fact, most are just nerds about lifting and football, sometimes more traditional subjects like gaming, comics and math. (Yes, math.)
It's certainly true that our offensive lines were usually at least half national honor society members -- there was always significant overlap with the quiz bowl team -- and we had at least one hard core geek each year. It wasn't at all unusual to find two of us trying out the latest RPG or swapping indie B&W comics.
No not really. It will perhaps offend the bizarre establishment that has invaded school administration. However, this is bully repulsion 101.
If the system doesn't protect you, you must find a technique that does. Would we avoid school shootings,etc, if we taught our kids to stand up for themselves, don't let yourself get bullied? Real self respect vs the artificial "everyone's special" of today's thinking?
Sidenote: Why is this behavior (bullying) tolerated in school? What other part of our culture accepts bullying as "part of growing up" or "just the way it is?"
They're just children. They're not going to pay you. They're not going to vote. Their parents aren't actually the ones getting kicked (WOW would you see a different scenario in that case). It's easier to write it off as "childish" and do nothing. And if you actually sided with a child, there would be loss of status from affiliating with such a low-prestige person.
Same reason society tolerates rape in juvenile prisons. Same reason textbooks and teaching are so uniformly awful. Children have no power, and there's nothing to be gained politically or socially from siding with someone who can't side back.
If there was actually unequal punishment then you'll get a lot more "he started it!" kind of arguments, kids will lie to get whatever they want.
And at the same time, I realize looking back on school is that the teachers & admins in public school aren't that bright. As a group they're the poorest-performing college students.
When I'm a father, maybe I would rather have equal & consistent punishment for both parties, rather than some crappy teachers trying to decide who did what.
If we accept that "loving the bullies" is a sign of weakness that encourages more bullying, allowing the school to intervene is a sign of extreme weakness that encourages even more bullying whenever kids are out of sight of authority figures.
I agree that children should learn to handle confrontation for themselves, but at the same time when there are chronic offenders there needs to be repercussions. If a bully picks on a kid and they fight back, the bully will move on to the next kid. If he keeps doing it, take him out of the system, expel him from school, or (optimally) find him some way of acting out his aggression, anger, etc. in a more productive manner.
'Fighting back' would soon reduce the school to anarchy outside of the presence of a teacher, but telling kids to deal with it and shrugging it off as 'part of growing up' just encourages the bullies by teaching them that they can do whatever they want, as long as they don't get caught.
At the very least, my shit quit disappearing.
Earlier, ragging led to a few suicides, which in turn prompted the passing of the law. It does occur however; I have been ragged myself. Personally though, it didn't affect me as much as I feared it would.
> Sidenote: Why is this behavior (bullying)
> tolerated in school? What other part of our
> culture accepts bullying as "part of growing
> up" or "just the way it is?"
My theory is denial. Parents of bullies don't want to admit that their kids are doing wrong, and the parents of victims don't want to face the fact that they need to get involved.
That was my situation, at least -- even with known bullies... when I finally fought back, I got dragged to the principal's office... and I let him have it. Another rarity is that my parents actually backed me on that one.
I guess that can also apply to bullies in some American schools nowadays. What if the bully wants to prove how badass he is by taking it to a level that involves guns and knives?
Thank goodness I graduated before that kind of stuff started.
In my freshman and sophomore years in college I did some substitute teaching. It was easy money. The state gives you $90 if you can pass a TB test and everyone makes it through the day with all digits. Simple enough.
So one day I was subbing in a high school math class. I looked over the lesson plan and noticed that one kid was marked as a "disruption". As I'm going over the roll I'm looking for him. Football player? Nope, not him. Thug kid? Nah. Smug asshole attention seeker? No. Oh, there he is and holy shit it's me! White kid with glasses, either over or under weight and reading Musician's Friend, probably has a copy of Elektor hidden in there somewhere. His bookbag has every one of his books in it because he doesn't want to go to his locker. Either someone keeps messing with him or he subconsciously doesn't want to remember his combination.
Soon the disruption became obvious. Every few minutes someone would hit him or yell something at him and he kept withdrawing into his shell. After I threw a couple out it stopped. After class I stopped him on the way out and chatted for a few minutes. I was right, there was a copy of Elektor in his bag and no, he couldn't remember his combination.
During lunch I hung out in the teacher's lounge and chatted with a few of the teachers. Finally I asked them about him. It was a consensus, he was a disruption and they couldn't wait to find a reason to expel him. This was the point where I realized I'd never make it as a teacher. After years of being angry at the other kids it never occurred to me that they were also the enemy. Suddenly the codes made sense. How many times had I heard teachers say that students should be able to "learn in a non-disruptive environment"? Fuck, they wanted me to get thrown to the wolves; it was always a part of the plan. I was just a cancer in the education system's body, something that didn't just work its way out, despite their best non-efforts.
The following year I took a job in a call center and moved to their IT dept. Subbing was easy, but at least IT didn't feel like blood money. There was a silver lining. I ran into that kid a few years ago in a restaurant. He was married with a kid of his own. He rushed and grabbed by hand. "I just want to say thanks. You were right, they were all assholes."
That was by far my most satisfying job related moment. Only Hallmark moment I have to offer.
Where I come from, the third kid, who was pretending to be a bystander all along, with the gun under his shirt, would've shot you from behind your back.
Just because resorting to violence to deal with bullies works doesn't mean you should go all rambo with actual criminals.
b) It gives him a hold over the other two. If you're unfortunate enough to be attacked by a group, you'll often find that the physically smallest person calls the shots. They may look like a beta (waiting until the bigger guys have had their fun) but this is misleading. In a situation like this your aim is to isolate this person from his muscle - easier said than done, of course.
c) If they're professionals rather than doing it for kicks, dead men tell no tales. Forensic science helps, but only up to a point. A rainy night in a back alley won't leave much evidence, unless the criminal is foolish enough to retain a weapon or cell phone.
Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery.
These are children and their judgement is not always the best. Do you really want to risk that your child kills another child by accident while following your advice?
Will your child know how far is far enough? Is there a chance he or she might over-react to a situation that is not truly threatening?
Bullying escalates. If you don't trust your kid to make a judgment at some point, it's basically a matter of time before they get seriously injured themselves.
I'd rather teach my kid to stick up for himself and have the mistakes happen at the level of "knocked out tooth/broken finger" than letting things escalate in the first place.
Bullying does escalate. Therefore, teaching your kid to escalate on their side as well just makes it happen faster. The solution to escalating warfare is to break the cycle.
Bullying is typified by a victim being picked-on mercilessly because he never fights back. Because the bullying tears him down. Because the bullied is a victim.
Bullying isn't a contest for the bully. They do it precisely because it isn't. They're not trying to 'win', they're trying to make someone else feel as bad as they feel. If they can't do that, because the victim refuses to be victimized, they find a new victim or find a new outlet.
If your kid just gives the bully a few bruises but ultimately loses the fight then they've sent the message that they're not an easy target, and the bully has saved face.
That is not true. MAD worked in the cold war. The solution is to let the other side know you will not go gentle into that good night.
The second one no, but the second one is mostly an exaggeration for "don't be the one who starts fights, but be the one who ends them". Cemetery is probably a bad idea as it'll breed revenge, but going at it until they are physically unable to fight back is probably a good idea.
"Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, hurt him just enough so that he leaves you alone - but don't kill him."
I hope this is mainly internet posturing and bravado.
I'm not sure every child has the perspective to recognize hyperbole. There are times when violence may be necessary, but that doesn't make it any less horrible, whether justified or not.
It's unfortunate that violence is sometimes necessary in school, but it is because bullying isn't taken seriously by the administration. Bullies spend all their time making trouble, so they get good at doing psychological damage and flying under the radar of authority. But the damage they are doing is potentially severe. Bullies usually have severe problems at home, and I feel bad for them, but they mustn't be allowed to spread their self-loathing virally by means of systematic low-grade abuse to anyone who is an easy target (ie. the weird ones, the free thinkers, the people who don't conform, and thus are more likely to bring something new to the world when they grow up).
If administrators took this more seriously and started expelling these kids, then that would get the attention of their deadbeat parents, and violence would not be necessary. However in reality, school is like prison, and sometimes violence is the answer.
One thing I actually disliked about the post is the way he has de-humanised bullies. When in reality the correct approach is to feel sorry for them - because they have all manner of deep seated issues. Not in a lovey-dovey way (which, he is right, is silly) but in an adult comprehending way.
The act of your violence is a potential learning experience for them too. Too much vitriol and anger and they may come away harbouring deep resentment, and later come back at you with escalating violence. But a short sharp shock could teach them some important truths.
For the most part, the really bad bullies I suffered at school are already failures in adult life. With the one exception of another bully who also got beaten up (not by me) late in the school system - he was dramatically changed after that and is currently one of the nicest and most successful adults I know (although there were other factors swinging in his favour).
So sympathy, but not hippy-love. Violence, but not retribution.
It is a tough balance.
If you don't want the other side to escalate, take it there first and do it fast. If you are truly worried about escalation, then by induction, all fights are fights to the death because beating the bully "just enough" will lead to the bully coming back with more firepower. Lather, rinse, repeat until firearms are involved.
So, you over-compensate. You do everything within your power to kill him and hope someone can stop you or they run away. If you don't take shit from anybody, people will stop trying to give it to you.
Malcolm X, the supremacist dude who had Nazis at his conventions, is a really bad role model for your children.
Edit: why the downvote? He was supremacist, and Nazi connection is well documented: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_supremacy#Alliances_with_...
From the Wikipedia article:
"In 1965, after breaking with the Nation of Islam and denouncing its separatist doctrine, Malcolm X told his followers that the Nation of Islam under Elijah Muhammad had made agreements with the American Nazi Party and the Ku Klux Klan that 'were not in the interest of Negros.'"
Now, notice the "after break-up" part. Have a look at this photo:
She was doing an essay on Malcolm X, these fellas attended one of his conventions. The one in the middle threatened to make a lantern out of her (Arnold is Jewish).
In her later interviews she mentioned that many people get really upset when they see this photo, and exhibition curators often objected to its inclusion.
She was doing an essay on Malcolm X, these fellas attended one of his conventions.
While remaining agnostic to your point, it's troubling that you keep citing references that don't support it. The caption on that photo makes no reference to these Nazis being in attendance at a Malcolm X rally.
But I now took an effort to find a reference for you:
Grep the text for "Rockwell".
Rockwell was listening to a speech by Malcolm X – the Nazis and Black Muslims
had formed an alliance – and this was the real reason Arnold was there.
I'm not a violent person. I never have been and never will be. I do not consider it a valid way to solve problems. Reverting to our animal nature is rejecting the progress we have made in our brains overriding unproductive basic survival impulses in favour of smarter solutions.
That's not to say this approach doesn't work. For some people it works perfectly. But hitting back only works if you're stronger than them. Otherwise they'll just kick your ass and things will get worse. And even if it works, all you've done is validate the world view that might makes right.
The world is full of idiots who ruin the lives of others, both at the micro level of domestic abuse and the macro level of dictatorships, because of this principle. It's the law of the jungle, and you know what? We don't live in the fucking jungle any more. We live in a civilized society, where intelligence can triumph over brute strength.
Nobody should know that better than HN, a community of nerds who dream of changing the world one keystroke at a time. I'm disappointed to see how much support there is for this idea.
The smart solution to bullying is to make it socially unacceptable. Kids don't take dumps in the hallways because there's no payoff to doing so. But if you beat up the unpopular kid, you get some credibility. Rob them of that credibility, rob them of their motivation, and you end bullying, without swinging a fist.
Sure, the bullied kid — which generally has low sociability, either from the start or following the ostracization coming along with the bullying, and few if any friends — is going to make bullying "socially unacceptable".
That's a very nice feel-good declaration, but it's about as helpful as "smack yourself in the mouth to help them so the beating is shorter"
Well, you're wrong. I don't want to get all Heinlein on you. But this is the way of the world. If you're cold, you put on a jumper or turn up the heating. If you're hot, you have cold drink or you sit in the shade. If you don't do one of these, the situation remains the same. And if you're threatened, you fight or you run. If you can't run, you fight. And if you have to fight - trust me on this - you have to go all in.
The smart solution to bullying is to make it socially unacceptable
If you have a way for an 8-year-old fat kid to do that, let's hear it. Hell if you have a way for "society" to do that, let's hear it.
When kids realize that there are consequences for bullying, and that they have to stop, they will.
(The above goes for physical abuse, mostly. The solution for verbal abuse is "learn to insult them better". They either learn to stop insulting you, or they fall back to physical abuse, in which case, see above.)
That's what my parents did when I was bullied in middle school. They called the other kid's parents, and he stopped. There was one time they did need to threaten the principal with calling the police, and she pleaded with them not do it, promising that the kid was getting psychological help for his issues, and they agreed to conditionally back off (and he never threatened me again).
Bullying is already socially unacceptable -- it's against the law of society. We can solve it the same way we solve every other criminal activity, which is by involving the law enforcement authority.
Edit: Changed "socially acceptable" in the last paragraph to say "socially unacceptable" (was a typo).
If a kid's parents do not care about him, I'd like to suggest that the least of that kid's problems is getting bullied in school.
Truer words have never been spoken. Fighting isn't a first option--it's a last option. But if you were teased in school (like I was), the last thing a bully expects is a kid that will rage on him.
Making bullying "unacceptable" isn't a reality.
Children need a justice system that they can respect, which will only happen if the system respects them back -- treats them like first class citizens with a voice and control over their world. The adult system can't do that, so they probably need one of their own. As their educators, adults need to help them build it.
Children want civility as much as adults do, but as long as they have no control over their world, they will not feel any responsibility for it.
Children aren't mini adults. They're half done adults. There's some scary and important stuff missing.
Not being little monsters should be a part of their education. Instead, they have to grow up and live in the adult world for several years before they actually learn to act like adults.
I can't even begin to list how many things are wrong with this. So fighting is only worth it when you know you're going to win?
The author's point is if you stand up for yourself against a much bigger and stronger bully, you WILL get your ass kicked. But that's fine. Everybody gets their ass kicked once in a while. But the fact that you were not afraid to stand up for yourself gets you respect. The bullies will likely move on onto the easier targets that don't fight back.
I agree with 99% of this article. Except this:
> I’ve got some sets of names I’d name my sons as they’re born. They’re unconventional names – Cosimo Marshall or Aurelius Marshall if the boy’s mother was Italian, Zhuge Marshall if he was Chinese. The boy will likely get teased.
Ya think?? And even though you realize it, you're still planning to do it? I'm sure the kid will be VERY grateful when he grows up.
"The core story of the song was inspired by humorist Jean Shepherd, a close friend of Shel Silverstein, who was often taunted as a child because of his feminine-sounding name."
You might recognize Jean Shepherd as the author of the stories that were turned into the holiday movie A Christmas Story (he also served as narrator in that movie)
Extra Credit: Watch the Scut Farkus beatdown scene again.
Years later, at a party, I got into a fight with a punk (I mean a real punk, with a stupid haircut). He was acting like a twat, bothering people, like they do, and I told him to piss off and he headbutted me in the face, breaking my nose. And actually, while not something you'd want to happen every day, it's not too bad, a lot of blood but it doesn't really hurt. Then I kicked his ass.
Naming your kid a name to MAKE SURE he gets bullied in order for him to grow up tough sounds insane to me... regardless of the great Johnny Cash song
It's bizarre this is even considered, because this whole thread is filled with revenge fantasies about bullies. Why would you think the bully is just going to think "oh yes, zhuge omarion lionhearted is the superior fighter, I concede" like in some corny kung-fu movie? If you hurt a bully, they are just going to plot out how they are going to hurt you worse the next chance they get...
Finally, if violence is truly the answer, why not just go all-out Columbine from the beginning? There's no more bullying when the bully is dead. Then the problem is truly "solved," right?
It doesn't work like that. In practice, the bully will take the path of least resistance and pick on someone else. Which sucks for them, but the hierarchy has now shifted - the original victim has moved up, but the capability/social capital of the new lowest member of the group is still higher than theirs was. It doesn't take many iterations of this cycle before the bully will either meet their match or have a critical mass of the class openly against them.
This happened in my primary school, actually, the bully in this case was a kid who'd been held back from a higher year. Eventually simply no-one would talk to him. Problem solved.
yhe above simple logic and my own personal experience fighting back is what this is based on, not some corny Kung foo movie.
Don't put words into others mouths, its rude and unnecessary.
Re your going columbine troll, the response should be limited to what's required. Snd, obviously, violence is already the supreme authority and final resort in society - that's what police and the military are for.
Bullying isn't about you to the bully. Its about them, and picking on someone. The someone isn't that important, and when you become the someone who is more expensive to screw with, they leave you alone usually.
(And I think this sort of thing as an adult is stupid and a good way to go to jail, but at 10, it works fine).
> Ya think?? And even though you realize it, you're still planning to do it? I'm sure the kid will be VERY grateful when he grows up.
Unconventional names get you teased as a kid, and remembered as an adult. I think it's a good tradeoff.
Summer break came around, and I enrolled in Judo, Boxing and Muay Thai classes. I took an under the table job in construction to pay for the classes. I stole a kayak to get to work. Every single activity in my entire life was focussed on getting better, so I wouldn't get my ass kicked.
I jogged, lifted weights, exercised, trained, etc. I was Rocky. I was the Karate Kid.
When school resumed the next year, the first Wednesday, I got into a fight. I didn't lose. I wouldn't say I "kicked the other guy's ass", but I didn't lose.
After that, i didn't get into nearly as many fights. I was no longer the easy target. And there weren't any other white kids in the class, so much of the violence stopped altogether.
I'm sure you could potentially attribute it to the bullies being a year wiser, or any other number of factors, but from my experience, this argument holds water.
I was getting my ass kicked more frequently in public schools, so my parents moved me to a Christian private school. The school board mandates x hours of physical education per week, but the school was smallish, and didn't have a gym.
Every Wednesday we would hike down to the nearest public rec center. The rec center was a fairly good size, so we had the option of multiple things to do -- volleyball, kickball, whatever, all spread out on separate fields. This meant that the teacher(s) would rotate from one field to the other to keep an eye on things, which invariably meant that any given field was only monitored about a third of the time.
I never believed in team sports, because of this - if we were playing volleyball, for example, and I made a good serve, somebody on the other team wanted to kick my ass. If I made a bad serve, somebody on my team wanted to kick my ass.
I later moved from Hawaii to Tennessee, for my junior and senior years of high school, where, due to my athletic build and coordination, I was sought after by all the coaches for all the sports teams, but I hated sports. I'm over it now.
The smart solution to smoking is to make it socially unacceptable.
The smart solution to binge drinking is to make it socially unacceptable.
The smart solution to football violence is to make it socially unacceptable.
The real smart thing is for every corner of society, from education to prosecution, to realise that there is no blanket golden solution to every problem.
His solution was to make hijabs mandatory for prostitutes at all time. It was one of the most successful mass persuasion tactics he ever used, and if you visit modern day Turkey almost no one wears hijabs.
Edit: Scratch what I said above about modern day turkey, my data is old and unsourced.
I spend a fair bit of time in Istanbul, and I can categorically tell you the hijab made a comeback some time ago. There are two main ways it's worn - one is a classical cultural style and the other is more of a political statement. It's the latter that's coming back in fashion, mainly due to the actions of the current political party in power.
I was a violent person in elementary school and Jr. High. I was made fun of constantly and things occasionally came to blows.
I usually won.
But it didn't help much, really, even if it satisfied me at the time to literally pound-in the heads of kids who'd been making me miserable.
Teasing and bullying only seem like they are about someone seeming weak. They're about a mob mentality. That is what needs to be addressed. I'd say a social atmosphere where non-conformists are fair game is mostly what stimulates bullies. Individual kids fighting back is not really going to be the solution.
Do you think it was just non-conformity? The meanness of children in general? Is this something that all humans have? Or some american dysfunction? Some western dysfunction?
Not true. Bullies tend to pick on people who won't fight back* because they're easy prey. If you demonstrate, even by losing, that you're not willing to take it from them anymore and that you will resist, you are no longer easy prey.
*Obviously this isn't true 100% of the time, but more often than not.
You don't need to be stronger, or a better fighter, you just need to make fighting you painful enough that the pain outweighs the gain. This is one of the key principles of deterrence (even on an international scale) -- you don't need to be strong enough to win the fight, you just have to be strong/vicious enough to inflict enough pain that "not fighting" becomes a better option for your opponent.
Or he'll "pick on you" with a huge stick out of kicking range, or he'll guard his nuts next time he's got you in a headlock.
Which weakens the headlock and leaves something else vulnerable (unless he's got three arms).
See, but that's the crux of the entire issue, and you (nor the OP) have not offered statistics backing this up. Anecdotes are not data, so I don't care if this "worked for me" or whatever.
A bully who gets his ass kicked, or doesn't win soundly enough, could easily escalate the next encounter with a knife or bat or something worse. Or maybe not! I don't know, neither do you or the OP, and so maybe we should not be making authoritative declarations about these things without consulting actual research.
Self-defense isn't the same as aggression, it's an act of self-preservation which is still very much a principle of civilized society. The author of the article failed to make this distinction clear. When you stand up for yourself or a friend you're sending a clear message that says "I'm not going to take this laying down."
"We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified."
-Barrack Obama, Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech
2. I do not consider it a valid way to solve problems.
The smart solution to bullying is to make it socially unacceptable.
When you're in a confrontational situation where the other party is about to beat you to a bloody pulp you can't take a time-out to establish a social stigma. Furthermore that wouldn't work. Most bullies are deviant by nature so making something socially unacceptable would just make it more alluring.
3. We live in a civilized society, where intelligence can triumph over brute strength.
But hitting back only works if you're stronger than them.
By the former statement it appears that you exclude violence categorically from the realm of "intelligent things to do." Violence, just like any other human interaction, is a language with its own inflections and subtleties. Without training and practice how do you expect to be fluent or successful in getting your point across?
Someone shoves you: throw a chair through a window, flip a few desks, go completely ape-shit. Make it known that you are willing to cause lasting and permanent damage for the slightest offense. Pretty soon no one will want to cause that slightest offense.
This is an intelligent tactic. And will preemptively stop a lot of aggression.
Kids don't take dumps in hallways because it can negatively impact them. They will take dumps in hallways they don't frequent just for kicks.
This is a response to violence. If someone gets violent with you, become excessively violent with them.
I think every party involved would prefer if personal conflicts between two high school kids didn't result in unnecessary property damage. Otherwise, I agree. Going "ape-shit", all in, is what will prove the point that you shouldn't be fucked with.
I'm not sure how getting the administration involved would help the situation, but I suppose it might.
I rarely assume that someone who threatens me with violence cares about my well-being.
You're assuming that if you comply, you won't get your ass kicked. Sometimes, you're going to get your ass kicked regardless so the only question is whether they're going to pay a price for doing so.
Curiously enough, bullies don't like the risk of damage, even if they "win" the fight.
> where intelligence can triumph over brute strength.
"can" is often by the grace of folks who have brute strength.
As if guns grew on trees.
Sometimes the only way an animal will listen is if you speak their language.
I disagree that "The smart solution to bullying is to make it socially unacceptable." A solution is not a smart solution if it cannot be put into practice, and it's not as though there's any real control over what's socially acceptable among children.
If there's a real solution, it's to be found among adults. Children are basically small adults. While there's a bit of a gap in reasoning capacity, the gap is much smaller than people give it credit for: children are smart. So, why do adults not "bully" each other all the time?
There's a strong argument to be made that this is because we've cordoned adults who are likely to instigate violence off into their own social environments (criminal). That's a strong possibility, but it probably doesn't hide a solution to the problem: we don't give children the power to do this, and doing it for them would be a ground ripe for abuse of power. As much as I don't like it, there may be no good solution.
There's also a strong argument to be made that adults don't get into fights simply because they have better things to do. That might be a good place to start: give children more and better choices about what to do.
Probably the strongest argument is that adults have a perfectly good nonviolent way to signal status: money. Children don't have any such thing, so they come up with their own. Counter-intuitive though it seems, giving children a strong status-signaling mechanism other than bullying might be effective.
We first have to understand the world we do live in, before we can reasonably change it to the world we'd like to live in.
And until then?
Bullying is assault. The first time the police gets involved, it will be unpleasant for the bully. The second time, he gets arrested. The next bully to come along might realize he doesn't want a criminal record, and if he doesn't, his parents might. And if they don't stop, they get sent away to juvie.
Why do we assume highschool/middleschool kids are somehow untouchable by the law?
Ever had to actually get the police to follow up on something like that? They'll take your report... but if no one is injured, it often ends there.
The correct way is by intelligence but by being prudent in a Machiavellian sense and knowing when you need to be physical and when you can and should use a civilized argument. But just painting every situation as one of white or black for all time is nice abstractly but it's not practical.
Are you sure about that? I'm not at all convinced -- especially in the US.
Kid stuff is kid stuff, adult stuff is different. That 9th grader had almost certainly never tortured someone with a car battery. Same with the muggers - who's to say that they're sane in the least? What if they're really strung-out and have knives, now you're going to the hospital.
When I tell people there's usually someone who tells me I should have fought back, or whatever. And I went through relief, anger, fear it would happen again and the thirst for revenge afterwards, replaying the situation and second-guessing myself, wondering if I should have fought back or done something differently.
But it's not worth the risk. My friend works in public housing in the area, and said the guy was probably a local gang member. These guys fight and carry knives from when they're children. I've never been in a real fight and I have a desk job - odds are that I would have ended up in hospital.
So I handed over the 40 pounds cash I had in my wallet, and he bailed.
A random encounter like this is a totally different situation to a bully at school, where you mostly know who you're dealing with. There's a couple of times I now realise I probably should have stood up for myself at school, but being mugged on the street is not the time to start learning to fight.
In my view, it's never worth risking your life to protect your belongings. Be like Roger Sterling in Mad Men and give up your money & your jewelry.
Shooting an attacker is safer for you. It is usually far more expensive, though -- maybe 1-5k in legal costs even if it doesn't get much followup (and if it goes to trial, could be over 100k), potential civil suits, and of course the cost of firearms and training to even have the choice.
I would definitely toss a $500 wallet and run if it were at the time a safer choice, even with a firearm. But, I would have no problem killing to defend my life, either.
I was speaking mainly to a situation where you'd be inciting some sort of a fight or a struggle with someone crazy enough to attempt a mugging. In this case, I still stand by my feeling that you're better off complying.
If you're able, by all means, protect yourself. You'll find no objections from me there.
Now, a certain feeling of invincibility may be priceless to some people, but they're far less invincible than they think - if you go around expecting violence then it's probably more likely to happen to you. Not to mention that, statistically, you're shortening your lifetime more by owning a gun (I like guns but don't own one) than you're extending it by the small chance that someone's coming for your life and you actually see them coming.
Carrying a concealed weapon (where legal) has a lower benefit than carrying a cellphone and first aid/trauma kit (which I also carry, and will try to get to EMT-I certification again, if not paramedic), but I still think it's a net improvement in your personal safety, assuming you're trained and competent.
The biggest disadvantage is that in some states you can't go into a restaurant where alcohol is served (even if you're going for a meal and don't drink), and of course the fashion compromise of a 1-4 pound hunk of metal/plastic/wood.
I think most gun owners disbelieve "invincibility" even more than non-gun owners when it comes to guns -- handguns especially are fairly non-lethal (at 3', I'd rather have a knife), and give an advantage to he who initiates violence. I'd be very happy to trade a firearm for a Dune-style shield or something.
I think another factor is that a responsible gun owner who is carrying is probably more likely to avoid places where an incident might happen -- aside from bars, I'd also be a lot more likely to be less confrontational in traffic or other situations if I realized there was a potential it could escalate to shooting. I've never been involved in any kind of scuffle or anything while carrying a firearm, and while I actively avoid "bad areas" to the extent possible no matter what, it's another factor. Although I am willing to stop to render aid to stranded motorists when armed, whereas unless it's a very clearcut situation, just drive on (and optionally call 911) otherwise.
once somebody is threatening you with violence, you don't get to count on anything. especially if you act like an easy target.
The problem could be that kids don't interact much with people outside their age group. They have no reference point of how adults behave. It becomes a sort of Lord of the Flies world.
If we really cared about safety, we'd focus less on airport security and "stranger danger", and more on getting people to wear seatbelts and never drive while intoxicated. Statistically, automobile accidents are by far the leading cause of accidental death in the US.
My group of geek friends and I took our share of hassling in the first week. It was probably day 4 when one of the bullies had a go at a friend of mine (over a paper aeroplane if I recall) so I stood up to him. I then got backed into a corner by 2 or 3 of them who started really hammering me.
Something snapped in me.
I started kicking, punching, kneeing, throwing windmills and swearing like a crazy person. I don't know how long it was before a teacher came out and broke it up. But I'm sure it wasn't long, and I'm dead certain that I barely made contact with anything. We all sat in the principals office and got a stern talking to. The older kids were suspended, I was let off...probably because my brothers were star pupils.
They thought I was bat-shit crazy. For the next 6 years I wasn't hassled again.
Today as a parent, I give the same advice to my children. We are a minority in our neighborhood and my kids go to great school. They have been through multiple attacks from bullies. My son is in middle school and so far has been able to fight back at many would be bullies. I made it clear to the principal and some parents of bullies that my children are permitted to fight back when attacked, that I will stand by them in all circumstances.
So far it has been working pretty well next year my daughter will be in high school and my son is a reputed defensive player in the basketball team.
I think where parents get confused is on the individual vs. group distinction. We look at the world, see all the various tribal wars with their counter-attacks and counter-counter-attacks, and erroneously conclude that violence doesn't solve anything.
We're not talking suicide bombs and airstrikes, here. If Alice shoves Billy, and Billy shoves Alice back, there's often no escalation, and no-one else is harmed. The issue is settled, and everyone's still alive and well. This is much better than ongoing bullying.
Why can't we change the culture of school such that, at least while you're actually _in_ school, you're focused on being the smartest person you can be and not looking over your shoulder?
At least, I think that might have something to do with it.
And unless they're already hardened gang members, this should work pretty well, and probably breaks no laws. And if they do do it again, live up to your promise, to the extent possible.
If they are hardened gang members, you should probably get your child out of the situation, because fighting back is a losing proposition.
It is this very mindset that perpetuates violence, it doesn't end it. For Sebastian, the line is clear "as soon as someone puts their hands on you," but everyone has a different line. Taunting someone every day for months can push someone beyond their line, and when they push you away out of desperation they have "put their hands on you."
Being strong and standing up for yourself does not require physical violence. Understanding the reason someone is picking on you is perhaps the best way to actually stop it, and perhaps even address the root cause, making the road better for the next person in line. When complaining about the bully in my elementary school, my parents explained to me the social situation that he was brought up in, and how we were so lucky in comparison. I didn't "love" them, but I understood them much better, and learned how to avoid getting in their way. Hitting back wouldn't have solved anything.
I'd suggest that a large part of why MLK succeeded is because Malcolm X was loudly stating the alternative.
I've never been physically bullied, as I've always been both a dork and an athlete, but I was teased relentlessly early on. My dad's advice was always to ignore, and this just didn't work well enough. That's how I discovered the power of personality - the power to fire back is (sadly) what wins respect of children.
The challenge once you've gained the skill is to reign it in - to be intentional in your response, and to sometimes decide that nonviolence, or silence IS actually the way to go.
Does anyone out there honestly believe that there's a single solution that will work in every situation? I hate to be so condescending, but really now! On a site like this, where we make careers out of handling edge conditions, we should know better.
If a kid punches you because he hates himself, should you punch him back? What if a kid punches you because he's trying to fit in with a circle of friends, and they hate themselves, but he just kinda has low self-esteem? What if a kid punches you because you remind him of a kid that bullied him last year? What if a kid punches you because he's having a bad day, but he feels bad about it after? What if a kid punches you because he likes you, but he has an abusive family environment and punching is the only way he knows to express affection? What if a kid punches you because he hates himself, but he hates everyone else too? What if a kid punches you because he has low self esteem and he's jealous of how smart you sounded in class just now?
The answer to everything up there is not "JUST PUNCH THE FUCKER" or "JUST HUG THE FUCKER." Come on. They are all unique situations in their own right, and they all must be considered separately. In fact, each of those has different solutions based on who the target is. They're schoolchildren. They're humans. They're not computer programs! They're not predictable automatons! If you're new in school and you fuck someone up on the first day, that's completely different from being bullied for six years and then finally punching back. The first has a higher likelihood of getting you left alone. The second will probably make it worse! If you're a small kid and you try to give them a hug, that's different from if you're a big kid. They could say the small kid is only being friendly because he's too wimpy to fight back. They could say a big kid is only punching because he's too stupid to think of a comeback. IT DEPENDS. It fucking DEPENDS.
The whole reason "bullying" remains an "unsolved issue" is because people keep suggesting silver bullets, and there fucking isn't one. Instead of attacking each other's silver bullets, why don't we take the difficult but arguably more worthwhile path of identifying different motivations for bullying and how the psychology of differing responses works? Because this "be friendly"/"punch them out" bullshit sounds more and more like emacs vs. vim to me.
Aikido is a notable exception to your point about martial arts. I highly suggest Aikido and the New Warrior, an excellent book of modern anecdotes describing what it really means to practice "the way of loving harmony."
I'm not saying that hugging is the only way to respond to bullies. In fact, I'm not even saying that I would hug an aggressive bully instead of punching. My point is that you cannot simply say "Quid pro quo, break his nose" and be done with it. Life is more complicated than that.
'You're a fool' said the veteran, 'What if someone had wiped out all the Buddhists in the world and you were the last one left. Would you not try to kill the person who was trying to kill you, and in doing so save Buddhism?'
Thich Nhat Hanh answered patiently, 'It would be better to let him kill me. If there is any truth to Buddhism and the Dharma, it will not disappear from the face of the earth, but will reappear when seekers of truth are ready to rediscover it.
'In killing I would be betraying and abandoning the very teachings I would be seeking to preserve. So it would be better to let him kill me and remain true to the spirit of the Dharma.'
Morality is very different from reasonable consideration of facts. I do not want to die so if I know someone will respond with that type of revenge I will avoid causing that. If Gandhi were alone in an alley and started being beat up on, the morality may hold him from fighting back but that doesn't make the risk of dying any lower.
In your first paragraph, are you saying that a Buddha/Jesus/Gandhi is only a pacifist because he expects lesser Buddhists/Christians to defend him with violence...?
Also, I doubt that Gandhi or Thich Nhat Hanh would claim that their morality decreased their risk of dying. Their point is that it doesn't change anything (for them).
Not many people want to be thought of as weak - but strength doesn't need to come from aggression; sometimes confidence and defiance can go a long way to providing any necessary 'short, sharp shock'.
I got bullied a little in middle school. However, in a completely unrelated event, I said something with one feeling and someone nearby thought I said it in anger I guess.
Next thing I know, SWAT and local police are at my high school and somehow everyone knows who they're looking for.
Apparently "Really? OMG Im gonna kill her! lol" directly translates to "I'm going to bring a gun to school and murder her".
I was never messed with again and no one asked.
Like I said, that's the only issue I have, and I condone the advice to fight back. I do think that bullies, or at least some individuals who are bullies, have the potential to be talked to. However, I think it's unlikely that they can be talked to by the person they're antagonizing, while they're in the process of antagonizing them. If you're being picked on, you have neither the responsibility, nor the ability, to redeem your tormentor. Concern yourself with your well-being, defend yourself, and leave the redemption to a professional counselor. No one has the obligation to act in the interest of someone who is acting against theirs (although I have deep respect for those who volunteer to do so).
The difference between fighting back as a deterrent, and fighting back as moral superiority, is rather fine, and in the moment of fighting back, probably indistinguishable. But there are downstream effects of thinking of others (and especially of treating them) as less than human, or even as inferior to you. Thinking that the current situation will never change blinds you to ways to change it, and in the long-term, that results in things failing to change.
I had a similar experience (and resolution) in middle school and I agree with the author's conclusion. But now I have an 8 month old daughter who may experience this type of bullshit one day, and I'm not sure what advice I'd give her just now.
The asymmetry of this situation is not described much here because the type of bullying attacks used by females are less physical. The mechanics are similar but the techniques are different and can be summarised thus: "Males are paratroopers, females are secret agents". Males rely more on aggression and physicality and are overt while females specailise in covert relational and psychological bullying. If you want to read the mechanics & some citations try here ~ http://seldomlogical.com/2010/06/18/hacking-people
The best article I've read on bulling is "Big Bad Bully" ~ http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200910/big-bad-bully and the best references specifically for dealing with female bullying I've seen is by "Rosalind Wiseman" ~ http://www.amazon.com/Rosalind-Wiseman/e/B001IOH8ZW/ref=sr_n...
I don't have kids - but id probably tell her the same. Its more about teaching a lesson and giving encouragement and about standing for one self. She probably wont go gorilla on her peers. Girls tend to do it in more subtle form.
What I think is the most important thing to do is to give training by example - live the way of a warrior and kids will pick it up themselves. Be polite, kind, sincere but closely follow the rules of engagement - when someone sets tries to turn tables on you, be sure to let him know that you know the game too.
No one ever tried to lay a hand on me, so if I'd started anything, it would've been me looking like the 'bad guy'. And somewhere along the way I'd already internalized that as a 'good girl' disappointing authority was the worst thing I could possibly do.
I tried ignoring. I tried preemptively mocking myself to take the wind out of their sails. Nothing really stopped it. I got really lucky that my high school had a surprisingly large 'smart kid' group (6 National Merit scholars in my graduating class of 330) and eventually I was able to keep a large enough peer group to just not have to interact with most of the kids that bullied me.
But despite my small close circle of friends, I still graduated high school feeling like an outcast. Our entire AP history class once deemed me a 'neo-nazi' because I made a comment about the biased language in some video we watched. We had studied rhetoric only a few weeks before in English, and I was wondering why the video seemed to pulling so many of the tricks we'd just learned about in order to make the holocaust look like a bad thing. It seemed unnecessary (in my innocent mind I was thinking, 'Aren't the raw facts enough to convince anyone?').
My one offhand comment (literally just the words, 'That video sure used a lot of biased language.') turned into a full-scale mocking by everyone in the classroom except my two friends (who stayed silent). The teacher never actually joined in the mocking, but he stood by while it happened, encouraged the 'debate' to last longer, and even laughed at some of the hurtful comments made to me by the other students.
Not so that she can beat up the other girls, mind you, but having that sort of discipline, capability, and independence can really provide a good boost to your confidence. You know you're capable, and the taunts of others don't bother you as much.
It's not going to prevent it from bothering her, but it will certainly help her withstand it if it should come to that. If she's not bothered by their initial insults or taunts, they won't enjoy it enough to come back and harass her again.
The next day he had to pick me up earlier as I was accused of violent behavior - for choking the bully until he turned blue.
This lesson, learned so early, helped me a lot in later school life as I was that overweight small kid with thick glasses. And every time someone tried to bully me, I simply slammed my elbow in their nuts.
Kids can be mean monsters, they can be worse than any grown up. They have no idea how much harm they are causing.
Defending yourself against predators is a very important lesson in life.
I recall being bullied by a rather dull kid when in elementary school. I remember him relentlessly telling me he would kick my ass. I told my Dad and he recommended that if it push came to shove, to just punch him in the face. So, one day the kid came at me and I hit him (don't even remember where). I was never bothered again at that school.
Bullies reign when no one stands up to them.
I was that 10 year old kid. I had a junior black belt in karate at around 12 years old. My dad really kind of enjoyed it vicariously and was proud of my accomplishments. He also, like you, believed that I had attained some skills that could be used for real self defense. He told me that it should be used only as a last resort, as if it were a secret weapon. The fact is, it was nothing of the sort. I could never handle myself in a fight, and I never had the confidence that I could, either.
There are many martial arts dojos out there that sell exactly what kung fu movies sell: fantasy. These are the dojos that every kind of kid goes to and they all just love love love it, and their parents just think it's so great and fun. These are the dojos where you will see people lined up in rows to repeatedly kick and punch and block the air while yelling "kyah!" or something to that effect. Sometimes they'll kick and punch pads that instructors are holding, and sometimes they'll be paired off to "spar" really lightly with one another, where the mere soft contact of a gloved hand on the chest represents a hit. Memorization of fight/dance moves is a major part of progressing from each belt. The one thing that these dojos will not do is have your son or daughter fight anybody.
The simple fact is that you cannot learn to fight without fighting. Punching the air or a pad does not prepare you physically, emotionally, or mentally for punching a person. Totally dominating imaginary attackers in an elaborate dance may have something to do with arts, but absolutely nothing to do with martial. Not even a false sense of confidence is given to these kids, because when faced with a real threat, they know very well that they're not prepared. The false sense of confidence is sold to the parents.
It certainly doesn't hurt to take your kid to a dojo like this, because at least they have fun and get a decent workout. But the real reason I wanted to go as a kid was to learn how to fight, and my dad thought that was exactly what I was learning, and it ultimately proved to be a great disappointment because of these mismatched expectations.
I don't know what kind of dojo you take your kid to, but the advice from this random guy on the Internet is to make sure your expectations are being matched. A fun workout with a group of peers is good for a kid, but if you (and him) really want to develop fighting skills, I strongly recommend trying something like wrestling or Jiu-Jitsu. It needs to be a place where the kids are pitted against each other in a well-controlled environment, where the goal is to physically overpower your opponent.
I guess you get bullied when the other party things they have little to lose and lots(of pleasure) to gain. Soon as you signal they might have something to lose and they believe you they move on to the next victim.
A few times I remember just cursing out the bullies OUT LOUD. I was considered so weak that they never thought I'd do that. Once I did, the bullying stopped.
Until I stopped taking flak for it. Bullies are just trolls in real life. Letting them make you feel dejected (or showing it) just feeds them...it's just like internet trolls.
Responding back to them, not violently, but trolling them back meant that you were no longer a victim, but were just playing the same game. Eventually, I made friends with the kids that used to tease me.
I really don't think that responding violently to bullies is the answer. That just further serves to enforce an "us" and "them" mentality. Bullying them back, just playing their game back at them makes it into a game. Eventually, at least for me, bullying turned into friendly jabbings.
Given that I was one of the smallest guys in the class, that naturally meant I became a target.
At first I would try to ignore it, but it never went away.
Well, one day I decided I wasn't going to take it and I fought back. I hit him a few times and we rumbled together and I ended up having him in a 'sleeper hold' - i.e. my arm around & in front of his neck, with my other arm locked around the back of his head - with him fading quickly.
In a fit of desperation he quickly pulled out a compass (the one that had a 1-inch long point) and stabbed me in my arm - to get me to let go. Well, it worked, I let go instantly.
The pain was intense - but he was able to get his breath back. As soon as we both realized what he did, I turned to walk to the bathroom (because it had started bleeding by now), but he thought I was going to the principal's office. Naturally he ran after me apologizing profusely and literally BEGGED me not to go to the principal.
I bluffed a bit, and indicated to him that if he ever troubled me again I am going straight there.
That was the end of that...for the rest of my high school career he never troubled me again. As a matter of fact, if he ever saw anyone else try picking on me, he would kinda take up for me.
So while I wouldn't say 'take something hard and knock them in the back of their head' but simply fighting back and standing up for yourself can help significantly.
Although, a word of caution, I could have easily been stabbed elsewhere (like my eye, or head). So take that for what it's worth and advise your kids of the real potential consequences of fighting back - not to mention further retribution by the bully's friends (which is a very real possibility here in Jamaica).
That being said, I am definitely going to advise my son to hit back - but do it wisely and make sure not to do TOO much damage. i.e. once they back off, stop, leave, and report it (or not, as my case proved) or call me to at least let me know there was an issue.
Edit: Oh and for the record, the wound took about 2 months to heal properly and hurt like a mother-lover, for what it's worth.
Reading this thread, it occurs to me once again how countercultural the Sermon on the Mount is, and how hard it is to seriously live it.
I wouldn't recommend this as a plan of action for somebody else's kid. Or for others, in a pluralist political context. Or for nations. Because hey, this goes down to a very basic belief about how to live rightly and wrongly in the world, and how to respond to violence and evil.
On the other hand, the reward (if you believe it) is eternal paradise of some kind. Infinite good in exchange for some finite pain. Yay religion.
My dad gave me this very advice at the time, but I was too cowardly to follow it...
You don't have to be "un-bullyable", you just have to be less bullyable than the next guy.
However, I still believe it's possible to fight back in a non-physical manner. My experience has always been that wit is sharper than fists, so I plan to teach my kids to fight back with language, not punches.
I attended 8 schools between ages 12 and 18 (yes, more than one per year) and was bullied throughout.
And that's why comparing parenting strategies is almost never fruitful -- nearly every decision a parent makes is deeply personal, made with very few data points.
( By the way, if any parents here have NOT read Nurture Shock, buy it right now. Pretty much the only data-driven book on parenting there is. http://www.amazon.com/dp/0446504122 )
Win or lose, getting beat up is not the end of the world. Some people are tougher and that's just the way it is. Winning a fight against a bully is not nearly as important as showing the balls to fight even if you don't think you stand a chance. It won't always produce good results one-off, but overall it'll be worth it.
As for some of these comments advising trickery like showing strength, staring, talking crap etc. Doesn't work. Once you've been in a few fights you understand this. A lot of it's on a subconscious level and your body language will make it obvious that you're trying to avoid a fight while pretending to act mean. People sense that and it's the absolute quickest way to lose a few teeth. So what if he's bigger and stronger? The quickest way to end a fight is to hit hard and fast with an utter lack of fear. If you really are at a huge disadvantage then yeah it won't go so well. But if that's the case you weren't going to scare him off with intellectual techniques either.
It all depends on the context of course. If somebody would try to do me serious harm, of course I would kick his balls. If it is just about domination, might not be such a good idea. Even more so with scarier stuff (knives, hard objects) - this could become dangerous really fast.
You could still compensate your lesser size with a lead pipe or a stick.
Humans don't work that way. Years of ingrained low self worth take years of effort to correct. Going Joe Pesci on one of them works in minutes.
Growing up being a short, brown-skinned, fatty-snotty nerd gain me a lot of verbal abuse, but I always was very good with wit and snark and more than once, the abuser ended up crying.
Funny enough, this ability gave me enough respect that almost nobody ever tried to physically abuse me.
They do not respect loving them.
They do not respect constructive dialogue.
Your peers will not respect you for trying to reach out to them. In fact they will see you as a kiss-ass, or worse a "bitch" (sorry but that's the term).
I moved to the US in '02. Attended a great Catholic school for 8th grade. Was accepted despite the funny accent and funny name. Went to high school and had a miserable 1st month of school thanks to a group of jackasses. One of them had the gall to touch me after which I took a lunch tray to a kids face. God my butt handed to me but guess what? No more bullying. Hell I got elected to the student council, dated some great girls, and had a great high school experience.
Stand up for yourself. It might hurt but you will get respect. Kids/teens are animals. No need to go cerebral on them.
To give some idea of what the text is like, here's a little bit of it from a section called "Where Do My Rights End?":
Justified Choices of the Self:
1. Whether or not to violently defend itself against violence;
2. Whether or not to violently defend someone else from violence.
3. Whether or not to destroy itself.
4. Whether or not to help a weaker self destroy itself, to save it from a worse fate.
1. No attachment to nonviolent creeds.
2. No attachment to collectivity or authority which might prohibit the self from removing itself from "the line of fire"
Caveat to (1) and (2): So-called involunrtary attachments are not binding..." (pg 81-82. Abbr. Edition)
Vollmann would fully support responding to violence in kind, there's a long section on non-violent movements and their utter hopelessness in the face of regimes unwilling (like bullies) to tolerate any dissent.
[The classic example of this is perhaps Harry Turteldove's story "The Last Article," which proposes Ghandi campaigning in a Nazi occupied India and ends just as you would expect it to.]
One particularly bad day, after school, I went home, got a baseball bat (and ball, in case I was stopped by cops). Took a sidekick, went back to school, and looked for the bully. He ran back onto school grounds (I wasn't going to risk a suspension by going into school with a weapon), but I made sure that a few people in class knew I was looking for him. When I went into school the next day I got a grovelling apology from him, and was never bullied again. I was surprised by how well it worked.
Looking back more than a decade, I cannot believe how incredibly foolish I was, but it convinced me that bullies are most effectively stopped by the most primitive means.
Years later I found out from a childhood friend that he was beaten regularly by his drunk of a father. He ended up himself in prison for repeat drunk driving/vehicular manslaughter
Early on, I definitely felt a sense of schadenfreude at this news (him being in prison). As the years went on though, and having reaped the benefits of my circumstance for an good education, career, wife and a family, I can't help but reflect somewhat on his life and his circumstance.
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.
Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma; Retaliating.
Only time things ever came to blows, the other guy (who struck first) was 8-10 years older than me, muscular and a good 2-3 feet taller, and that is a fight you do NOT fight.
Fighting as an adult is pretty stupid and a good way to get a felony record.
And if it works, that's great, and I'm all for it. But while we're waiting, I agree with the author's post.
First of all I'm 22 and not living US so I can only talk about growing up in Germany but there is one thing I learned growing up in Germany: Fist fighting is not a solution.
I never used my fists in my entire live (!!) to beat someone cause I don't think it could change a situation into a better situation.
I think we can all talk. Saying that it is what works because of our "animal nature" it's plane wrong. We would never live in this democratic world if everyone would use their fists to make things right.
Also it is really URGENT to tell kids that this is not a solution cause this will never be a solution while getting older and sometime a job. At work it will not help you to beat someone if he/she is bullying around with you. You will lost your job if you do so.
So please stop telling your kids a solution which only COULD (I don't think it works though) work in school. Worst thing what can happen is that your kids will try to solve every problem with a solution father told him/her.
Last but not least I know very well how hard school can be for kids but developing a good personality needs downs and ups. We are all "nerds" and I think we know hard times really well.
Thank you for listening.
But I have to say, in an acutely dangerous situation, the right thing to do is physically defend yourself. Then you can love the person, if they are still alive.
However, the author goes on to describe attacking people trying to mug him - that's a bit foolhardy I think. Sure, it may work with some people who thought they had an easy mark, others might pull out a knife and gut you. I'm not saying you hug they guy and tell him how swell he is - but for the sake of yourself and anyone that might be with you - just give them your wallet or car or whatever it is. Now if you feel they are going to put you in a situation where you won't be able to defend yourself (they want to cuff you, tie you up, etc) - now you have an argument for going on the offensive.
Now, when needed (so far only in football) he knows how to hit, get hit and not fear it.
My parents let me do Judo and Ice Hockey at that time. I wasn't very strong or big but I learned some things in Judo class. Mostly how to fall and how bring someone down. I never liked fighting for my belts so I stopped doing Judo after a couple of years with the blue belt.
I intend to give my son the opportunity to learn some martial arts too.
I think I was under 10 when I upset a girl who lived next door. Don't remember really what I did, but I sure as hell remember her father chasing me three blocks, only to tell me very gently that it wasn't nice and he'll have to talk to my parents if I did it again.
But like for kids, the other guy can be just too big for you to fight back.
Not so much in the business world (and especially tech); while you're busy engaging in a dogfight with Joe Competitor, some third company is kicking your trash by spending money on R&D rather than winning a marketing/feature war. So it generally makes sense to avoid direct confrontation, because it slows you down.
Even captured warrior. In WW1 and WW2 many captured pilots were treated with dignity - one of such stories: http://www.campking.net/WORLDWAR.html
Or the notorious Douglas Bader escape: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Bader#Prisoner_of_War
Sure you should defend yourself if someone is physically about to harm you but I think most kids being bullied don't do this because they are weaker/outnumbered and it's just going to anger the bullies more. The smart thing to do is to report them because the system shouldn't tolerate them.
Don't underestimate the element of surprise! Hit first, hit hard, son! :)
People who are bullied are bullied because of they way they are perceived by others. You notice how there are a lot of neutral people who nobody bullies?
There are the bullies on one extreme, then there are a lot of neutrals, then there are the bullied on the other extreme. Asking a person who is bullied to hit someone is not solving the problem at all, it is actually contributing to the 'weirdness' factor that made that person bullied in the first place. The people who are bullied are not bullied just because they look physically weak, but because they are giving off the wrong social vibe. Doing something like hitting someone is not addressing the real issue.
To stop a child from being bullied, you need to address the short term problem, and you need to adress the long term problem. The short term problem is that the people need to stop, and the long term problem is that he needs to gain a lot of confidence and properly learn how to integrate himself in a social situation. He needs to learn to assert himself, and not be weak.
The short term solution can be solved without violence. If a person is bullying you, and you just say nothing, just scowl and lean towards the person with your arms swinging free, look straight into the eyes of the people without blinking, speak in a low cold voice, then walk away without looking back you can almost always stop further aggravation. Most bullied people make the mistake of smiling and trying to laugh off the problem, then going into a body posture that says they are defensive, and hopping from foot to foot or fiddling with clothes, and looking down. This encourages the bullies, because you are displaying beta-male behaviour.
The long term solution involves forcing the child into a lot of social activities, so that he learns how to establish and build social hierachies. Also, a lot of physical activity, particular where he can get to dominate, and also team sports where he is working with people less competent than him will also help teach him to assert himself.
Saying somethin like "punch the person" is not only not very clever, it's also practically undoable for most bullied people. Most bullied kids are small wimpy and non-assertive kids. They can't punch anyone. Don't give this pointless advice.
In middle school, teaching me to be less weird would have been pretty difficult. Teaching me to hit back--well, I didn't even have to be taught. Turned out hitting back stopped the bullying, and growing up stopped the weirdness (at least, I think it did).
Your advice is probably good for kids who are just unpopular and weird. Once the line is crossed into violence, though, it's a different class of problem. There are only two responses to violence: involve the authorities, or if the authorities aren't present or don't care, hit back. The situation in that respect is more like prison than like coaching a weird kid in social skills.
Culture of violence? That already exists as soon as kids are getting bullied. A culture of violence is only solved when adults in authority care enough to become involved. People don't physically bully each other at work because if you did, the police would take you to jail. People do physically bully each other in school and in prison because in both cases, the authorities don't care.
The point you've missed in this article isn't to START a fight. It's that if someone starts one with you, you better bloody well finish it. The key phrase, "as soon as someone puts their hands on you..."
This isn't about defending an assault of words with an assault of fists. This is about defending yourself from violent, aggressive morons. Walking away from someone intent on hitting you will just result in you getting hit from behind. The best solution is to dig in and hope for the best. You're gonna cop a hiding anyway, at least defend yourself.
I don't think anyone is suggesting violence as a solution to bullying. But you sure as hell can't defend yourself from violence by joining in more social activities.
You see - everything you said is true, just the order is completely wrong. You see, its impossible to do what you proposed as an act of assertion. Since one would need to already be confident and assertive.
And that's just why its so hard to do if you're the weak bullied kid. You'd need to have solved the long term problem, before you can even think to tackle the short term.
My mom taught for many years in urban inner-city high schools. Had she stood up to bullies who bullied other kids or teachers she would have had to deal with bullies whose parents had been shot or killed in drug deals. There is a different mentality there.
Sometimes a show of strength is the best thing, sometimes a show of kindness is the best thing.
Just make fun of them. Make them the laughing stock of the whole class. Bully them verbally. Make fun of them and suddenly you'll become more popular - which will likely insulate you from any further bullying.
Maybe I was lucky, but this strategy worked wonders for me back in the days.
I'm sincerly surprised that a community as educated as HN only suggests brute force as an effective response to school bullying.
Additionally people rarely change so those bullies you faced back in your childhood are sitting around you at your place of work as well. Do not let them have the time of day, and do not give in to them, fight back.
My guess is that less than 5% of bullies are prepared to actually fight. Therefore, even if you are setting your kid up for a beating it's only likely to happen with 4% or so of bullies. I would say this lean risk is far preferable to the daily torment that comes along with consistent bullying.
Just a different take on it. Comments have been good otherwise.
Bullies are animals. The only thing they respond to is something so simple that they can understand it.
If you try to explain that society expects more of them and they are disappointing society by not being a contributing member, you will fail because they are too dense to understand.
They do, however, understand violence. And if they cross the line, don't hesitate. Fight back. Otherwise you risk being branded an easy target.
"The task of the training battalions is to crush and completely destroy the individual, however strong a character he may have possessed, and to fashion out of that person a type to fit the standards of spetsnaz, a type who will be filled with an explosive charge of hatred and spite and a craving for revenge."
It's a book by Viktor Suvorov "Spetsnaz. The Story Behind the Soviet SAS". A quick and interesting read.
Violence and degradation is a common method of training soldiers. Some (not me) would say the school system is deliberately set in this fashion.
It sounds odd/interesting to me and given that the rest of the article is well written, this puzzles me quite a bit. I normally associate such uses of 'make' with native speakers of Arabic, which obviously doesn't apply.
* "Video games could make violence on the whole seem more 'okay.'"
* "Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has promised to make violence on the basis of sexual orientation a priority for her office."
The only google result that seems similar to the original article is from asianoutlook.com:
"You can make violence on weeds, ideas, and terror, but not war."
In that sense, it's closer to the phrase "make war on", which is much more common. Without knowing any asian languages, I would assume that they use war and violence somewhat interchangeably, which would explain the odd phrasing.
Things as they actually are is the only way that they are in truth.
So the teaching that it's loving them is what's false -- not that love itself couldn't help. In this case, it was a kind of love of oneself to fight back and protect oneself.
And even when looking back at what has happened (trust me, the stories of this and the article this one links to are nothing), I pride myself on not falling back to the ways of a savage animal.
I feel that it's deeply wrong to hurt anybody. How are you better than the bullies once you begin to hurt others?
How do you make sure you don't cross the boundary between self-defense and being a bully yourself? Even though it might feel good. Do you really want to be what you hate?
School is hard, but once you get to know people who respect you and take you for what you are (a nerd in my case), things get better and you will even feel pride for what you are instead of constantly hating yourself.
Take comfort in the fact that you lived up to your ideals of humanity and be proud of what you have become. Use the brain you got for good instead of shutting it off for revenges sake. Be human.
You simply have to make yourself an uninviting target.
A rare trip the priciple's office is a fair price to pay for multiple years of freedom from bullying.
Also can work well in business. If someone is being a pain, just ignore them and don't give them the publicity they're seeking.
Kids (of a certain age) don't know when to stop. They naturally try to establish a pecking order, and woe to whoever's at the bottom.
Note that I'm not saying you should go punch someone who verbally insults you. I'm specifically talking about responding to violence.
This is after being bullied from the age of 9 to 14, and boy did I hate school. College was a different matter.
For me, it worked fine. (As well as obviously telling teachers and getting them involved if needed).
I absolutely detest parents who tell their kids "If someone hits you, hit them back harder"
Why? Do you believe this makes society more violent?
By the way, I don't agree with the "harder" bit. I.e. I would advocate a more-or-less proportional response in non-life-threating circumstances.
If you hit back, it makes you just as bad, if not worse as the original perpetrator.
But son, as soon as someone puts their hands on you, they’ve crossed a line. Fuck them up. It’s the only thing these vicious freaks understand. They’re wild animals. They make violence on you, you need to show them that you’re the stronger, bigger animal. When someone attacks you maliciously for no reason, you need to impose your will on them.
All unwelcome contact is considered to be enemy contact, and nuclear retaliation is offered as the solution.
And yet not all contact is roughhousing, not all roughhousing is bullying, and not all bullying justifies maximum retaliation. Of course, implicit in this advice is the ability to distinguish how offensive or aggressive an unwanted contact actually is, and to measure one's response appropriately...exactly the sort of thing kids (usually) learn by experience, but (frequently) miss when receiving knowledge transmissions from a trusted moral authority.
This is not an argument for pacifism or passivity: I am well aware that not all aggressive people secretly want to be loved or are just having difficulty making polite conversation. I was a small child and remain a fairly small adult; I've been bullied (in school) and attacked by various street criminals (as an adult) - more than most people, I'd guess. I dislike fights and haven't started one since age 8 or so, but I will finish one if it is forced upon me, and also enjoy non-competitive martial arts (ie fighting with other students for enjoyment of skill rather than pursuit of belts).
Going all-out in response to attack is a poor strategy, rooted in fear rather than confidence. It may not be appropriate in the first place; indeed, bullies and criminals frequently exhibit a victim mentality and complain that the target of their aggression 'made them do it.' Overlooking this factor assures that sooner or later a person will end up wondering how s/he ended up being the bad gal/guy - if not for physical fighting, then in an employment or domestic context. Secondly, it may not be necessary: the aim of self-defense is to end the confrontation and deter future attacks, and most attacks are experimental or opportunistic. Such opponents will quickly fold in face of equivalent resistance, and often when confronted with far less (eg a push in response to a punch). Violently revenging your hurt feelings, rather than merely defending your hurt person, forces your attacker into defending themselves with an least an equivalent degree of fervor. You win by holding your ground and seeing your opponent quit; to withholding this option is to rob yourself of your own victory. No outcome that takes place under duress yields certainty to the immediate beneficiary. Thirdly, if your attacker is serious and dangerous, then going all-out can be quite dangerous. Such moves are more apparent and less calculated, and an experienced opponent can easily exploit this to use your own strength against you.
Having been on both ends of this equation, I feel comfortable in saying that the person who loses their temper will lose any resulting fight too. Conflicts are mental problems, to which the physical aspects are often only a footnote.
I don't like this advice, because I don't want to ever be forced to play this game. If you threaten my physical safety, I'm either going to ignore you and move along, give in and go the police afterward, or I'm going to kill you. Not figuratively; there is no game. I hope to never get to that point, but there is no chance that I'd try to beat an aggressor with my fists fair-and-square. Instead, I will ensure that they never threaten me again.
That's the nuclear option.
The trick is to emasculate them. Show them you don't care. When they insult you or hurt you, laugh at them. You just have to mean it.
I was bullied for years until I realized one day why they bullied me - I smelled of fear, and I didn't react, I just stood there and looked at them. Suddenly it all made sense, they were like braindead sharks to blood.
So I started smiling and laughing at them.
Took the wind right out of their sails, and they weren't able to force me to come down to their level.
Play their game and they still win on some level, because hurting another person hurts yourself.
"Hurting someone hurts yourself", bullshit. Revenge is sweet. Defending yourself is not a weakness or immoral, it's rather noble.
If you go with the "laugh at them" technique, they will still go around bullying other kids.
But, stand up and fight them, and they learn a lesson that bullying has some serious consequences. You also set an example to other bullies and other kids being bullied.
No. They'll just learn that bullying you has serious consequences, and that they should find an other target.
"An armed society is a polite society." -- RAH
Where "armed" just means where people are willing and able to defend themselves.
Revenge has nothing to do with self-defense.
Beating up on other people kills you inside, slowly, because it shows you exactly what kind of person you are.
It doesn't matter if you're "standing up" to some other kid. Violence is violence.
I'm not saying violence is never required, but if you're resorting to violence when a smile and a chuckle will do, you're weak -- you don't have enough willpower to control yourself, or brains to think up an alternative.
If I could go back and do it all again there'd be two or three more swung fists. Probably no more than that, either, because that's all it would take.
In fact I think this debate would be really different if defending yourself against being bullied actually required sustained violence, but instead rather we're in a world where I can ask "How many people have killed themselves that could have been saved by them instead swinging their fists once?" and get a number probably at least in the thousands.
This isn't just a philosophy debating match; children are dying over this, and a lot more are getting badly hurt.
Her abuse of me doesn't weigh on me nearly as much as mine of her, because in the latter I had a choice. So there you go.
I disagree. What kills you inside slowly, is all the authority figures telling you what a horrible person you are for defending yourself.
I mean, by all means if you live in a place where the cops will actually do something if someone hurts, just call the cops. But you have to remember that the world doesn't consist entirely of north america.
Self-defense and unprovoked violence are two entirely different things. The law recognizes this and so do most sentient beings.
Sadly, this does not include most school administrators.
Obviously, this doesn't apply to every single administrator. #include <std_disclaimer.h>
The same thing happend last week when I run into the same guy late night. He was there with a dozen or so friends after a night out. I was there just to grab some pizza and get back to work. So he asks me if I knew anybody here. I just shook my head and said no. He asked me my name. I told him my name. He proceeds to yell out that I am here alone and don't know anyone. Then it came out that I knew several people in his group. He looked stupid and drunk. And I got a laugh at his expense. All by just playing dumb and being non-reactive.
Laugh at them, turn them in to a joke whenever they attempt to do something to you, and eventually they'll realize that people are laughing at them, not what they are doing to you.
I did have to get physical a few times but it was only the odd extreme case where this didn't work.