"Anti-Bullying" Campaigns Are Useless

originally posted by: Tenebris
a reply to: Night Star

As much as I'd like to agree, it must be said that expulsion would only make matters worse. Lack of education is what created these brutes in the first place.

I don't see how you can say that, seeing as the bullying commonly starts and continues at school. If they continue bullying at school without consequence it will teach them that it's accepted.

Where else is bullying allowed? Is there any place but school that wouldn't throw someone out immediately for physical assault? If anything, I think education encourages bullying.

originally posted by: sycomix
a reply to: Tenebris

Or people could just raise their children the way it was back in my day, my father always told me don't start the fight but if somebody else does by damn end it. I may be a bit off in my view of the world but the only people i see who get bullied are the soft ones anyway.

there you go.
only way to stop a bully is to not let them get away with it. very simple really.
if you left someone mess with you they will keep doing.

if you smash them in the face they will stop.

worked well for me.

originally posted by: Tenebris
a reply to: greencmp

I'd say incompetence rather than deliberate intent. The former is a product of stupidity, whereas the latter requires a certain degree of intelligence. And the difference between stupidity and intelligence is that intelligence has limits

Let's hope so.

The underlying point that I am making is that if it can be established that awareness campaigns promote rather than prevent the negative behavior in question, why continue them?

In the case of bullies, I am predisposed to assume incompetence as you say rather than intent but, what about anti drunk driving, violence against women, racism and a host of other campaigns? The list goes on and on.

Using public funds to exacerbate a societal problem is unacceptable, knowingly or not.

This is the nature of social engineering.

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: DBCowboy
The best way to stop a bully is to break their nose. It worked for me! And I still can't breathe out of one nostril.

The best way to stop bullying has always been to remove the incentive of the bully. Bullies tend to be cowardly and lacking in self-esteem. Therefore, if you make yourself an undesirable target by fighting back the bullying will end.

I always taught my daughter this and when a fellow male student got fresh with her and squeezed her butt she broke his nose. I never did punish her and neither did the school.

hahaha I was the cowardly bully back then. It sure taught me a lesson!

a reply to: TrueBrit
Do anti-bullying campaigns teach that it doesn't matter who started it? Not saying there aren't any that do this but it does sound like a urban myth about political correctness gone mad. Certainly the schools near me don't teach that it doesn't matter who started it?

a reply to: greencmp
You are starting with assumption that these campaigns don't work and drawing your conclusion from there.
Here in the UK campaigns against drink driving have been hugely successful. It is more difficult to quantify the success or otherwise of anti domestic violence and racism campaigns but they have certainly made it less socially acceptable.
I am unclear what better solution to problems such as these would be? Ignore it and hope it gets better certainly doesn't seem to work and as a libertarian surely campaigns to raise awareness are better that more and stricter laws?

The view that the best way to deal with bullying is by hitting back is fundamentally flawed. We are just perpetuating the idea that the best solution is violence.
Absolutely kids should be allowed (and taught how) to defend themselves if attacked but that is to prevent themselves getting hurt. It is not dealing the actual problem.
As adults in a civilised society we use laws and negotiation to deal with problems, yet some people seem to suggest that the best thing is for kids to fight it out battle royale style and all will end well.

a reply to: ScepticScot

They bloody well did when I was a lad, and my sons school seem to have the same policy, with him being advised to "just walk away" from those who might assault him, or here's the best one, when something has just happened, he is to find a teacher, tell them, and then make a note of it in a notebook he carries around for the purpose.

I have several logistical issues with this.

First, when under assault, walking away gets you punched in the back of the head. It gains you nothing. Second, finding a member of staff is all very well, and sitting down and making a note of it after the fact would be good as well, but that note is not acted on effectively, the problem will present itself again in either hours or days, and that is not acceptable. All of the softly, softly nonsense that informs the response to bullies, essentially involves some very complicated and important sounding methods of not dealing with the situation at all, which is why I have told my boy, that if someone deliberately hurts him, he is to strike out against them, go for the jaw, the neck, the knees, and make them eat the floor if he can. He's a sweet boy, but he gets stick because he has autism and ADHD, so his class mates seem to think he is easy pickings for victimisation.

In my view there should not be a time of day where any child can be aggressed against by another child, where that incident will not be seen by a teacher, and from such a close proximity that they cannot fail to hear of it, see it clearly, and make recommendations to remove the aggressor. However, that is not the case, and until it is, I would rather my boy defend himself, against the express orders of his teachers, than suffer it silently. He and I share much, but I would prefer that his start in life had marked difference to mine in that regard.

a reply to: Night Star

We agree on many things, Night. When I was a kid I was bullied a lot, until I finally had enough and stood up for myself, realizing bullies were cowards of course. I remember being punched in the nose, blood down my face, girls taking me to a teacher to report what was done to me (I never ratted anyone out, but on this occasion I went along with what the girls wanted to do about it: resolve it.) They brought me to a teacher who looked down at me and said something I'll never forget: "Well, you know, it takes two." That response stunned me. Imagine that logic applied to the adult world: a woman was raped by a man and the judge lifts his head, looks down his nose to the victim and says: "Well, you know, it takes two." There would be outrage! We wouldn't have it. Yet with kids this logic is somehow appropriate?

I also remember hearing things like "who's the common denominator?" (the victim frequently picked on, as if it's their fault for getting bullied) and "sticks and stones." I remember a stand-up comedian once saying that after his kid came home from school and said that his teacher told him "sticks and stones" he felt like telling him to walk right up to the teacher the following day and call her a "big, fat, stupid, ugly #+%#" and put her theory to the test. Of course, she would be appalled. If an adult cannot handle such verbal abuse, how could anyone expect a child to? When you're a child your diplomatic and reasoning skills are underdeveloped, and you lack the various insights, tactics and self-control which will later serve you in the adult world. They are vulnerable to attack and feel it much more sharply than adults.

From early on bullies should be confronted by adults and informed how terrible their behaviour truly is and that it will absolutely not be tolerated. Let them grasp that while they are still growing, instead of victim-blaming and letting them reap the awards of social dominance, fear, respect by other tough characters and a building of confidence through harmful behaviour, rather than through healthy behaviour.

No wonder we have so many sociopaths...

a reply to: TrueBrit
The schools my kids are go to are generally ok at dealing with bullying. Obviously I don't know your sons schools situation but sounds like they have issues dealing with bullying and are taking a cop out approach.
What I will say is teachers being human will of often take the path of least resistance. I have in the past had to make myself so annoying to them that it becomes easier to deal with issue than ignore it.
I tell my kids if they are attacked to walk away from the fight and report it but only after they have made sure that their assailant can't come after them.
The problem is that the stereotype of a bulky as weak coward is often misplaced and they are just as likely to be the phyco with no regard for personal safety. Hitting back doesn't stop the bullying it just means next time they might hit you from behind with a claw hamner.

a reply to: Tenebris

When my son was in 6th grade I got a call from his vice principal saying he wanted to talk to me about my son. I can in that day after work and it turned out that my “good boy” and some of his friends had been bullying some other kids. I was very surprised, because my son had complained how the older kids a school were jerks because some of them were bullies. I had told him at that time to “brass it out,” because being bullied is all part of life. I did not give him any stupid advice about getting violent, breaking noses, etc. Pointless to have a 6th grade boy who weighs 75 pounds get into a fight with an 8th grader who weights 135. Anyway...

The vice principal explained to me that rather then punish the bullies (suspension, expulsion, etc) the school had a policy of mediation which had returned excellent results. The goal of mediation is not to punish children, but to restore a positive relationship between the bullies and the bullied, who would in all likelihood be seeing each other and interacting in school for several more years. Also I live in a rural area, and many of these children will grow up and may have to interact with each other for the rest of their lives.

Mediation worked like this:

A mediator would go to the bullied children and their parents individually, find out how they had been wronged, and what it would take to mend the burned bridges.

The mediator would then go to the bullies and their parents individually, explain how the bullied children felt, and what it would take to mend the burned bridges.

In the bully agreed, the two children, the parents and the mediator would meet individually. Ground rules were set. The bullied child was allowed to tell how bulling felt. The bully was allowed to respond. The mediator guided the conversation. I brought the pizza and soft drinks.

I had to go though this with 6 separate children that my son had bullied. In each and every case, the children formed better relationships. 2 of the children that my son bullied now come over to our house to play with my son (he is now in 8th grade).

I also encourage my son, based on how well the mediation worked, to try to be a “peer” mediator when he sees other kids bullied.

At the end of the successful mediation process (it took about 6 weeks), I called up the vice principal and asked where the school district got the idea of mediation from in the first place, and why more schools didn't use the method instead of punishment. I was expecting that some university had done psychological studies, run test, childhood behaviorist with Ph.ds etc had come of with the idea. What he told me blew my mind.

One of the former principals of the school had majored in anthropology in college, and had studied remote tribesmen in New Guinea one summer. When someone wrongs someone else in the tribe, especially in the remote areas, there are only two solutions violence or mediation. In may areas, there is simply no effective state control: police, judges, etc. to intervene.

If violence occurs, it quickly escalates, and family members must also participate. Tibial feuds like this go on for years (think Hatfield's and McCoys), and usually result in serious injuries and deaths. If mediation can be attained, usually through the payment of pigs, then tribal like can back to normal, and the wronged party can back to living a normal like with the person who wronged him or her.
I think it might be helpful if our society see how there are other solutions to problems. Some of those solutions might be found in the ways humans lived 10,000 year ago.

To conclude, I find it interesting that many of the responses to the question of bulling is with violence, just as in the primitive tribes of New Guinea. But consider, there are other ways.

State solution:
In our modern society, we do have the power of the state, which does not really care about mending relationships, but of enforcing its will with rigid rules, especially when it comes to violence or threats of violence. In modern society, the state reserves the right to use violence. So we can use the power of the state to have children who bully expelled from schools, place on juvenile probation, forced to undergo questionable state supervised counseling , medical treatment in the form of behavioral medication, or even juvenile detention at state run facilities. But the state solution does nothing to help the bullied or the bullies, who after all, are merely children. What does that say about how modern states and societies really feel about or sons and daughters?

Mediation solution:
My experience is anecdotal, yet is was very positive. My son now has two new chums to pal around with. I think her is a better person. There are 6 bullied boys who hopefully feel somewhat better now. The vice principal is continuing with his successful mediation program at the junior high, and they are expanding it to our high school. Bulling rates are down. Kids are not under the power of the state, which cares little for their well being, but pursues the agenda of retaining the right to use violence to retain compliance on the population.

Guess which one I recommend.

Selah!

a reply to: Tenebris

I tell you whats effective, hitting that bully right in the snot box.

or

you could just instill into a child victim mentality. Learned helplessness.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: greencmp
You are starting with assumption that these campaigns don't work and drawing your conclusion from there.
Here in the UK campaigns against drink driving have been hugely successful. It is more difficult to quantify the success or otherwise of anti domestic violence and racism campaigns but they have certainly made it less socially acceptable.
I am unclear what better solution to problems such as these would be? Ignore it and hope it gets better certainly doesn't seem to work and as a libertarian surely campaigns to raise awareness are better that more and stricter laws?

In all cases these social engineering experiments are accompanied by some new legislation, the creative use of existing law or simply illegal unconstitutional intervention.

Just like the reallocation of funds from one program to another produces a decrease in the other, the reallocation of law enforcement toward behavioral intervention decreases their ability to conduct criminal investigation.

Criminalizing harmful potential rather than adjudicating harmful results is a misuse of what the original intention was for professional peacekeepers.

Should you go to jail for drinking and chainsawing your tree even if no one was hurt? It would be hard to argue that it doesn't present the very same danger that operating a motor vehicle presents. Once you go down that road, the justifications for further encroachments on liberty and, indeed free will itself, are infinite.

If it is decided that people can't be trusted to make decisions for themselves, that only leaves another person or group to make them for you.

Surely, you see that this is a slippery slope to the end of life as we know (or in some cases, knew) it.

a reply to: greencmp
I sm fairly sure we have debated the rights/wrongs of the legislating on potential versus actual harm and will have to respectively disagree with your position rather than drag thread off topic. Suffice to say I like living in a society where drinking 10 cans of super then driving at 120 down an urban road is illegal before you kill someone.
People are the products of the culture in which they live and good or bad decisions are not made in a vacuum. If telling kids that hurting the kid next to them is not ok just because they look/talk/act different is social engineering then bring it on.

originally posted by: Lysergic
a reply to: Tenebris

I tell you whats effective, hitting that bully right in the snot box.

or

you could just instill into a child victim mentality. Learned helplessness.

Yes because most bullies will of course only pick on kids the same size and rigorously adhere to marquis of Queensbury rules. And once bested in a fair fight will never bully any one ever ever again.
The idea that bullies are deterred by just standing up to them is a ridiculous trivialisation and to me seems perilously close to victim blaming. That's right little Timmy you wouldn't keep getting bullied if you would just stand up to the bully twice your weight and 6 inches taller than you.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: greencmp
I sm fairly sure we have debated the rights/wrongs of the legislating on potential versus actual harm and will have to respectively disagree with your position rather than drag thread off topic. Suffice to say I like living in a society where drinking 10 cans of super then driving at 120 down an urban road is illegal before you kill someone.
People are the products of the culture in which they live and good or bad decisions are not made in a vacuum. If telling kids that hurting the kid next to them is not ok just because they look/talk/act different is social engineering then bring it on.

I agree, we can disagree amicably.

I am trying to curb the urge but, I will just leave you with the clarification on your example that it already is illegal to drive 120. The question is, is it illegal to drive at 25 or 5?

No, it isn't social engineering to educate your children as to the nature of an honorable existence.

It is social engineering to take my money and use it to indoctrinate my children using some arbitrary and transient psychological hypothesis just to see what happens and then demand sterner measures when it produces unpredictable results.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Lysergic
a reply to: Tenebris

I tell you whats effective, hitting that bully right in the snot box.

or

you could just instill into a child victim mentality. Learned helplessness.

Yes because most bullies will of course only pick on kids the same size and rigorously adhere to marquis of Queensbury rules. And once bested in a fair fight will never bully any one ever ever again.
The idea that bullies are deterred by just standing up to them is a ridiculous trivialisation and to me seems perilously close to victim blaming. That's right little Timmy you wouldn't keep getting bullied if you would just stand up to the bully twice your weight and 6 inches taller than you.

Obviously there are exceptions. However with even a small amount of training the height and weight don't matter.

Also you can't protect people all the time. Self defence has worked for centuries. There are literally thousands of examples of underdogs.

Personally I prefer to teach so called "victims" to not be a victim in the first place. Coddling people is just as dangerous and unrealistic to the real world as bullies themselves. Empowering people to defend themselves is much better and has actual results.

Does that mean you just let kids get bullied no but some commercials and posters only go so far. Which isn't very far.

Two years ago I broke a road ragers nose who cornered me at a gas station after I turned off to get away from him. He was at least 6 inches taller than me. I was all peace and flowers until he grabbed me. If I were a victim I would have been clobbered. Thank god I didn't rely on an anti bullying campaign to protect me.

a reply to: luthier
If height and weight don't matter why do contact martial arts use weight categories? The idea that that little training is all that is required for the 6 stone weakling to take down the 6ft 7 body builder is a dangerous myth. In the real world fights can result in a life changing injuries and size does matter.
Society is about recognizing that there is a better way to resolve things than violence.
That is not to say that people shouldn't defend themselves but that is away to deal with an immediate threat it does not resolve a long term situation.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: luthier
If height and weight don't matter why do contact martial arts use weight categories? The idea that that little training is all that is required for the 6 stone weakling to take down the 6ft 7 body builder is a dangerous myth. In the real world fights can result in a life changing injuries and size does matter.
Society is about recognizing that there is a better way to resolve things than violence.
That is not to say that people shouldn't defend themselves but that is away to deal with an immediate threat it does not resolve a long term situation.

Because both opponents have equal training and ranking and small details matter at that level. Perhaps you missed the early days when there were no weight classes and Royce Gracie beat every opponent no matter the size?

Brazillin JiuJitsu was made for this very thing. Maybe look up some facts

And no its not a myth. I have taught Martial arts to kids for over a decade. The whole point is while training you build adequate muscles. With a few lessons you learn the vulnerable spots on human beings. They all have them.

It's OK maybe your posters will save you next time you leave the school yrd.

a reply to: greencmp
The reason that it is illegal to drive at 120 but not 5 is that it is possible to make an informed decision about a balance between safety and undue restriction. Not everything has to be a slide towards totalitarianism.
Not every child gets raised in the best circumstances, we are products of our upbringing and children raised in a violent home are more likely to commit violence themselves. I don't see efforts to reduce this as any form of arbitrary social experiment.