When I was in school, I was always worried if I punched someone, I'd be arrested and go to jail for assault and battery. If I'd known back then that was unlikely, I'd have taken advantage of it while I still could.
Anti-Bullying Video, But Is There Bullying?
- Thread starter robjvargas
- Start date
When I was in school, I was always worried if I punched someone, I'd be arrested and go to jail for assault and battery. If I'd known back then that was unlikely, I'd have taken advantage of it while I still could.
Nope, we just got swats, Saturday detentions, and suspensions. If you were really bad they'd just kick you out completely once you turned fourteen and then you could get a worker's permit and a job and be the coolest kid on the planet. Ah, the good old days!
With respect, shadowwalker, I think you misunderstood what I said. I did not say that bullying is prerequisite for criminality. I said that children who engage in bullying behavior are at a significantly higher risk for becoming involved in criminal behavior as adults.
There are strong elements of anti-social behavior involved in the act of bullying and once that behavior becomes entrenched it is very resistant to change.
How do you like this definition?
Definition of bullying: Bullying is a deliberate action that is designed to cause pain and suffering to the victim. It is not accidental. It is not a case of simple teasing or a little rough play and is almost never a one-off event. There is always a malicious intent to deliver hurt and humiliation, either physically, psychologically, or both.
Sadly, this happens all to often. Mostly, it seems, because parents and teachers lack a basic understanding of both the nature of bullying and the impact it has on victims. Handling a bullying incident fairly and effectively requires some knowledge and skill.
Telling a child (or an adult, for that matter) to 'just walk away' is really not helping. Due to its repetitive nature, escape from bullying is seldom possible. There are way better techniques that a bullied child can use, (which do not include fighting back or running away) but it still surprises me how few people know about these.
I think there's also a tendency to think of bullies as "over there" and victims "over here." But really my guess is most of us have been on both sides of it, possibly many times. I cringe to think of some of the things that were done to me. And, er... some of the things I did to others.
Also, in spite of how some people with no experience in it like to recite how home schooled kids miss out on social skills, my kids were well adjusted by any count, I think, when they were home schooled. They were around plenty of other people (of all ages) and were happy, calm, and got along well with others and did more of enthusiastically following their own interests, beyond the basics.
Then I put them in the public school and almost overnight they became... mean. A fourth grader was too superior to play with a lowly third grader. Nobody wanted to play with a kid the other kids didn't want to play with, afraid they'd be the next outcaste. Everyone knew who was slower at their school work, they were the stupid ones. They became very competitive and conformist and no longer interested in any of their special projects or anything there wouldn't be a test on. And so on.
And then people do seem to get much nicer again after high school, yes? The public school structure is really not well aligned with anything else in life, I don't think. Twenty five people all the same age sitting in rows, focused on maintaining the right mix of fitting in and standing out. Maybe what schools need to do to stop bullying is disband, since their artificial conformist and competitive structure is what fosters it. *shrug*
Then I put them in the public school and almost overnight they became... mean. A fourth grader was too superior to play with a lowly third grader. Nobody wanted to play with a kid the other kids didn't want to play with, afraid they'd be the next outcaste. Everyone knew who was slower at their school work, they were the stupid ones. They became very competitive and conformist and no longer interested in any of their special projects or anything there wouldn't be a test on. And so on.
And then people do seem to get much nicer again after high school, yes? The public school structure is really not well aligned with anything else in life, I don't think. Twenty five people all the same age sitting in rows, focused on maintaining the right mix of fitting in and standing out. Maybe what schools need to do to stop bullying is disband, since their artificial conformist and competitive structure is what fosters it. *shrug*
Last edited:
Certainly, that's one solution. But since it's unlikely to happen in near future, it would imo. be far more helpful if schools: a) took a stand against bullying by creating a climate wherein mutual respect is paramount and aggressive behavior has consequences, b) had a clear and unambiguous policy on bullying, c) provided their teachers (an other staff) with accurate information and practical skills for dealing with incidents of bullying and d) implemented a system for anonymous reporting of bullying, peer counseling and peer support for victims. I could go on...
I'm going to continue to protest the idea that malice must be a necssary condition for bullying.
Perhaps a more unambiguous example is in order. Say I steal your lunch money every day. I don't care about causing you pain, suffering, or humiliation, or anything like that. I just want your lunch money. I feel entitled to more lunch money than I have and I'm going to get it.
Why is that not bullying?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2011
- Messages
- 6,543
- Reaction score
- 511
I don't claim any expertise here, so what I've got are personal perceptions, not empirical evidence.
Kids are going group together with certain other kids, and exclude still others. I also believe that kids develop their means of communications, as pointed out by shakeysix's anecdote.
As much as we might like to prevent a child from being "left out," it happens, and always will. It's heartbreaking to watch the Down Syndrome girl be rejected. And it adds to the hurt when it happens en masse like happened in the video.
But rejection, in and of itself, is as much a part of life as breathing. We're all here (at least in part) talking about a pursuit of something that is 99% (or more) rejection.
A group of people can discuss and decide without intending harm. In fact, they've done no harm just by saying no. But bullying has to be more than that, doesn't it? More than saying no, even if said badly?
If we don't give these children the right to say no, what's left to them? Beating up the girl before she gets close enough to ask? Running from her like she has The Plague?
Socialization isn't an instinctive process. Well... not entirely. Nor does it always take place in the way we'd wish. To some extent, if we are too quick to judge negative responses as bullying, we actually shut down communication (and respect). The exact opposite of our intention, isn't it? Very much like just about any other zero-tolerance attitude, I'd argue, it achieves the exact opposite of the intended goal.
I would agree with a slight change - it is never a one-off event. There has to be a pattern, because otherwise any time a child got angry at another one - including their best friend - and did or said something hurtful, it could be called bullying. It's like sexual harassment - there has to be a pattern of harassment, not just somebody making a stupid remark.
I'm glad you brought this out - because there is a definite pecking order in schools, just like any other institution. The complication is that the pecking order isn't necessarily linear, with one group or person at the bottom. There was always someone else that group or person could target for aggression or ignoring. An added complication is that sometimes group/person A would actually defend group/person B because of a mutual 'enemy' - but the next 'round', A would be after B.
Just another reason why bullying is a lot more complicated than it appears.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2011
- Messages
- 6,543
- Reaction score
- 511
Because it's theft?
That's sounds dismissive, and I apologize for that, but I think there's a bigger problem in your example than bullying. Also, for one, it *is* malice (IMO) to believe that you're entitled to something that someone else owns. Secondly, it's important to understand that it is, in fact, a discrete and conscious action taken against another person.
So I don't think your example makes a good analogy.
Last edited:
Something can be intentional without being intentionally malicious.
A few pages back, there was an example given of a child who didn't understand the difference between evangelism and bullying. I'd doubt very seriously that the child was malicious in their intent - in fact, they likely thought they were helping as they understood the idea of evangelism, but the act was still deliberate.
I agree with this. I would not define a kid getting upset and saying something hurtful as bullying. Kids are just learning to control their tempers, and they're just learning that they can't always have their way. They're going to make mistakes.
No need to protest with me. I agree. If you look at my definition you'll see I use the words: '...deliberate action that is designed to cause pain and suffering to the victim.' If that's not malice, I'm not sure what is.
I use the word 'almost', as in 'almost never a one-off event', because I'm wary of using absolutes - particularly in a definition.
And yes, you're right. One of the ways of determining the difference between bullying and normal peer conflict is to look for a pattern of aggressive behavior.
Okay, try this:
All actions are deliberate, in theory, but not all actions are intended to influence, ridicule, or coerce a secondary party's behavior or being. Bullying generally is.
Either the bully is deliberately trying to intimidate someone into giving up something the bully wants or deliberately trying to influence someone's beliefs with repeated demands that the victim acquiesce to the beliefs of the bully.
The difference is that the first bully is doing something s/he likely knows is "wrong," like theft. The second likely thinks s/he is helping their victim by trying to force them to believe something in line with what the bully believes to be "right".
Different motivations, both bullying, both deliberate, but only one deliberately "mean."
But I'm saying desiring "to cause pain and suffering to the victim" is not a necessary condition for bullying.
That makes more sense to me than the previously proposed definitions.
One can "influence, ridicule, or coerce a secondary party's behavior" without wanting to cause them harm.
Last edited:
Ah. Okay. I get what you're saying. Unfortunately, consciously (or even unconsciously) wanting to cause pain and suffering to the victim is the motivation behind the act we call bullying. But, as I pointed out in my definition, there are three other points, or markers, that identify this behavior. These four markers need to be taken together as the criteria for identifying bullying.
Any kid (or adult for that matter) can lose his/her temper or reach a point where anger and frustration boil over and then do or say something which they later regret. This is not an act of bullying, even if, at that moment, the individual wanted to lash out and cause pain and suffering.
The answer to your question, I think, lies in understanding the psychology of a bully. Bullies have a very different mindset in comparison to children who don't bully others. As you can imagine, it's a vast topic but I'll try and squash it into a couple of sentences. Habitual bullies are, almost always, kids who carry a great deal of pain and anger inside. The only time they obtain some relief from this is when they're inflicting that misery on someone else. It is a deliberate, premeditated act. If it is not deliberate or premeditated, it is unlikely to be what is classified as bullying.
And as I've said, I disagree with that definition.
I never said it was.
Again, I disagree.
Most anyone can become a bully. It's part of human nature.
That's only one very specific type of bully, IMO.
It's a very narrow definition of bullying that doesn't encompass everything bullying entails.
Edit: On second thought, no, I don't think it's okay. It's dangerous.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2007
- Messages
- 2,548
- Reaction score
- 228
"Teasing" is a word "educators" and other people use to belittle the child involved and side with the bullies, and to indicate that they intend to ignore the suffering the child is going through, and allow the bullying to continue, because they are lazy, afraid of bullies' parents etc..
Last edited:
Liosse de Velishaf
Banned
I think that good friends do engage in harmless banter and teasing, but all too often people use that word to belittle what is actually taunting or bullying.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2011
- Messages
- 6,543
- Reaction score
- 511
I agree. I would only add that Bullying, also, doesn't have a one-size-fits-all definition either. An act performed twice in the same day *could* be bullying in the first occurrence and teasing in the second. Or even horseplay.