• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bullycide

Mr. Purple said:
[understanding tone]
My opinion comes with the assumption that we are talking about more or less average males of similar age. I don't know how the dynamics of adolescent girls would work. Further, kids with disabilities or those who are far behind the physical developmental curve may not have this option. Fortunately, at least in my experience, the "bully code" has them mostly on picking on kids that could defend themselves, given some training and self confidence.

[/understanding tone]
Click to expand...

Dream on!
 
Wudang said:
Even as snipped as it was


I was badly bullied by a group I thought were my friends my final year of primary school and at the age of 52 I still find it hard to believe that friends will stick by me. That some have is testament to their character, not mine.

However those who bullied me were not monsters, they were children. They were children who required education in more than just maths and geography but in social skills and life. Want to know why they bullied me? Part of it was I came from a poor family and was top of the class whereas everyone else who was near my standard came from better-off homes, which was the lever the guy used against me to get some friends to join in the bullying. He did that because his parents had promised him a reward if he won the final year scholastic medal ( a new bike and £100 which was a fantastic sum in 1976). That's a lot of motivation to throw at an 11 year old. And he didn't handle it well, but he was only 11. While I disagree with some things truethat has said and some are quite badly put, the fact is that branding these kids as monsters and failures is simplistic and unhelpful. They were children who did something that requires correction. We were never friends after that but in Uni days I bumped into one or other occasionally and we'd have a beer and a chat.
I was called aside by my my 5 year old's teacher last year and was told she'd joined in bullying another child who'd been desperately upset. My daughter had been treated badly by that in-group herself and when they invited her in, she joined in. As truethat says, that's human psychology for you. I had a long talk with her so she understood what she'd done, how the victim felt, "was that nice?". She felt really bad and asked the girl to play with her next day and no there's been no repetition. She's only little and it will be a lot of years before her brain finishes growing.
By the way as soon as one of the staff saw her start crying the victim was taken away to be comforted. The bullies were sent to the headteacher's office and were told their parents would be informed. But the school also saw it as an educational issue - that the children needed to understand what they had done. They were children who done a bad thing not bad children.
Adult bullies are a different case.
Click to expand...

I think this an excellent point. This is what got my goat about the use of the word "bullycide." As we grow comfortable in creating the 'good guys' and the "bad guys" we perpetuate the idea that those who are bullying are evil terrible people. In some cases this may be true. But as I posted earlier one of my bullies apologized to me at our high school reunion saying "I have no idea what made me so angry." In addition several of the other bullies have since facebook friended me and seem like very lovely people. So it's not this "bad bad bully." Something isn't working right. That was their problem.

I like that you shared your story so I'll share mine with my son. Perhaps if we share both sides of the story and examine what makes a bully a bully and a victim a victim we can create a template of reality that can prevent suicide. I don't know if the victim can gain an awareness of this reality but it would be cool if they could.


My son at the age 13 went to school with $10 and in an effort to show off bought a can of 99 cents Arizona iced tea from a classmate for the whole $10. As he thought throughout the day he realized how stupid he was to have done this. And so he started pestering the kid to get his money back. The kid wouldn't budge and my son got increasingly angry. Finally a group of my son's friends surrounded the kid and tried to "bully" him into giving back the money. They started mocking the boy and making fun of him and finally said something nasty about the boys mother. The boy then spit in my son's face. A teacher saw this and intervened. They dragged the boy down to the principal's office and called me to come to school. They have a zero tolerance policy about spitting. When I got to the school they had my son sort of coddled in the nurses office. They apologized profusely and said they were going to suspend the boy.

They gave my son back his $10 and said the whole thing was wrong on the part of the other boy. I disagreed. I said my son had made a stupid choice and expected the other boy to relent. I insisted that my son give the boy back the ten dollars and wrote a letter to the school protesting the suspension of the other boy. In my opinion this taught my son the wrong lesson. A. You are not responsible for your decisions. B. You can bully someone to the breaking point and then he would get in trouble. I insisted that if the other boy was to be suspended so too should my son and the other boys for bullying. They were shocked and pretty much think I am crazy. But they did not suspend the other boy and they gave him back the $10.

Parents need to understand that you can not allow this kind of behavior to continue. And this is a huge part of the problem. The reason the school freaked out was because they were worried about liability because of the spitting (AIDS disease etc) The concept of bullying didn't even register on their radar until I pointed it out.



3point14 said:
Right.

Apologies. First and foremost, apologies. A slight rant at a possible misperception of your point of view. Regretted and withdrawn. I'd delete it, but that, I think would be dishonest.

I still think that your posts contain a level of 'blame the victim', and while you may have the strength of character to overcome the disadvantages placed in your way by the unreasonable in life, I think others really don't. I still suspect a degree of rationalisation in the way you have dealt with it, and if this is what enables you to put it all behind you, then fair enough. I think others don't have that strength, perhaps, some years ago, myself included.

I still have a perception that you think it's not that big a deal and that discussing it is 'whining', can you tell me that my perception is dishonest? I promise I'll try to be civilised this time.
Click to expand...


I am against emotional pleading. I resent it. I have no problem looking at reality. Reality is easier to control. When you start into the emotional issues it tends to spin out of control (and out of reality) very quickly.

This is why I do not like the idea of "bullycide." You can not bully someone into comitting suicide if the student has a strong rational approach to the situation. It is only when it spins out into emotion and psychological issues that it gets out of control.

I have ASKED not stated throughout the threads, IS THIS APPROACH REALISTIC. It might not be. This is what I am examining.
 
Last edited:
Some of you may know of the death of James Bulger. A few years after I read a news article comparing the killers treatment with a broadly similar case in Sweden (IIRC) where the killers were seen as children needing treatment and stayed at home in the same village. The mother of the murdered child even saw it the same way - that as bad as she felt the killers were only children who could be saved, and I believe were. I don't think I'm a good enough person to be able to do that though it may partly be the attitudes I have from my society.
My Googling has failed to find the case - drowned in a torrent of frothing at the mouth about "failing to punish".
 
truethat said:
I think this an excellent point. This is what got my goat about the use of the word "bullycide." As we grow comfortable in creating the 'good guys' and the "bad guys" we perpetuate the idea that those who are bullying are evil terrible people. In some cases this may be true. But as I posted earlier one of my bullies apologized to me at our high school reunion saying "I have no idea what made me so angry." In addition several of the other bullies have since facebook friended me and seem like very lovely people. So it's not this "bad bad bully." Something isn't working right. That was their problem.

I like that you shared your story so I'll share mine with my son. Perhaps if we share both sides of the story and examine what makes a bully a bully and a victim a victim we can create a template of reality that can prevent suicide. I don't know if the victim can gain an awareness of this reality but it would be cool if they could.


My son at the age 13 went to school with $10 and in an effort to show off bought a can of 99 cents Arizona iced tea from a classmate for the whole $10. As he thought throughout the day he realized how stupid he was to have done this. And so he started pestering the kid to get his money back. The kid wouldn't budge and my son got increasingly angry. Finally a group of my son's friends surrounded the kid and tried to "bully" him into giving back the money. They started mocking the boy and making fun of him and finally said something nasty about the boys mother. The boy then spit in my son's face. A teacher saw this and intervened. They dragged the boy down to the principal's office and called me to come to school. They have a zero tolerance policy about spitting. When I got to the school they had my son sort of coddled in the nurses office. They apologized profusely and said they were going to suspend the boy.

They gave my son back his $10 and said the whole thing was wrong on the part of the other boy. I disagreed. I said my son had made a stupid choice and expected the other boy to relent. I insisted that my son give the boy back the ten dollars and wrote a letter to the school protesting the suspension of the other boy. In my opinion this taught my son the wrong lesson. A. You are not responsible for your decisions. B. You can bully someone to the breaking point and then he would get in trouble. I insisted that if the other boy was to be suspended so too should my son and the other boys for bullying. They were shocked and pretty much think I am crazy. But they did not suspend the other boy and they gave him back the $10.

Parents need to understand that you can not allow this kind of behavior to continue. And this is a huge part of the problem. The reason the school freaked out was because they were worried about liability because of the spitting (AIDS disease etc) The concept of bullying didn't even register on their radar until I pointed it out.






I am against emotional pleading. I resent it. I have no problem looking at reality. Reality is easier to control. When you start into the emotional issues it tends to spin out of control (and out of reality) very quickly.

This is why I do not like the idea of "bullycide." You can not bully someone into comitting suicide if the student has a strong rational approach to the situation. It is only when it spins out into emotion and psychological issues that it gets out of control.

I have ASKED not stated throughout the threads, IS THIS APPROACH REALISTIC. It might not be. This is what I am examining.
Click to expand...

I concur about the use of the term. Everything needs a buzzword these days.

However, re-reading your posts, you still seem to me to believe that the problem is with the bullied, not the bully. I think that is an unrealistic approach.

And I don't agree that a strong rational approach is a defence. It isn't and should't have to be. I don't think it helps to approach a teenager who hates his or her life and say 'oh, just be rational, it's human nature, it's not personal.' I can't see that helping at all, no matter how much honey you pour over it.
 
Truethat, I think it's a good lesson to teach your son and I think Wudang's story is a good one, too. However, Neither one reasonably fits the definition of bullying. Bullying is a repetative act where one or multiple people pick a single or group target. It occurs over a period of time. Both of your stories are more of a group behavior issue and it's good that they both have parents that nipped it in the bud.

This is why I do not like the idea of "bullycide." You can not bully someone into comitting suicide if the student has a strong rational approach to the situation. It is only when it spins out into emotion and psychological issues that it gets out of control.
Click to expand...

I go back to this again because by definition, spousal/child abuse is a form of bullying. Do you think that there are situations where a victim of domestic abuse can snap and kill their abuser? If so, then why is it not possible to accept that a victim of bullying can internalize the abuse and see death as the only escape.
 
(in reply to 3point14)
No, I'd analogize truethat's position (if I may) to be more like teaching a learner drive that people will do stupid, crazy, dangerous, angry things while driving and that it's a good idea to develop defensive skills to keep you out of danger and not to get emotional about it yourself in so far as is possible. Ideally the police would be pulling these halfwits over and thrashing them within an inch of their lives cautioning them. But given we can't always have that maybe we should also look at what coping skills we can help the victim develop.
 
Last edited:
After reading some of the comments US schools sound like prisons with the teachers as guards and the principal the warden.

Some of the comments on dealing with bullies sound like how inmates deal with surviving in the prison system.

Maybe some books out there on how to survive prison might be better at preparing students for school.

-Maus
 
sgtbaker said:
Truethat, I think it's a good lesson to teach your son and I think Wudang's story is a good one, too. However, Neither one reasonably fits the definition of bullying. Bullying is a repetative act where one or multiple people pick a single or group target. It occurs over a period of time. Both of your stories are more of a group behavior issue and it's good that they both have parents that nipped it in the bud.



I go back to this again because by definition, spousal/child abuse is a form of bullying. Do you think that there are situations where a victim of domestic abuse can snap and kill their abuser? If so, then why is it not possible to accept that a victim of bullying can internalize the abuse and see death as the only escape.
Click to expand...


Yes and I think this is completely psychotic. I think women who snap and kill their husbands are damaged psychologically and a danger to society and should go to jail.

I know of course people are going to rage against me saying that but that's how I see it. I see far too much "victim speak" in this country that perpetuates the idea that a person doesn't have control of their life and their choices.

By continuing this line of thinking we create more vicitims. I would prefer for people to get out of their emotional abyss and look at things rationally and logically. Of course I am realizing that most people are much more emotional than I am.

I have much sympathy for learned helplessness. However, I think it does society and the person a disservice to keep them in the mire. I do know there are certain types of violent men and bullies out there that are damaged as well and can not be rehabilitated.

Yet I see much more enabling behavior on the part of women in domestic abuse situations. I see much more "psychological" issues in the Western culture than in other parts of the world. I do wonder if this is a path that we have been going down so long it seems "real" when it is simply a creation of malaise in society. I pretty much feel the same way about religion.


As a woman I am often not liked by some of my girlfriends for approaching relationship drama with a very practical approach. "He is abusive leave." I lived in a situation where my ex was abusive and I left. I left broke with two kids but I left. I've never understood why people stay in situations like this.

My question, not answer, is are we taking the wrong approach? Are we perpetuating victimhood instead of intelligence and strength? Is it possible to change the flow of behavior by changing the perspective? Can a change of perspective eliminate the psychological drama.

In my personal experience coaching people through trauma, it has seemed very effective. But is it possible to do this long term and across a generalized board.
 
Maus said:
After reading some of the comments US schools sound like prisons with the teachers as guards and the principal the warden.

Some of the comments on dealing with bullies sound like how inmates deal with surviving in the prison system.

Maybe some books out there on how to survive prison might be better at preparing students for school.
Click to expand...

The comparison fails because many prisons have programs where the prisoners can acquire an education. Such an innovation has not yet made any headway in the school system.
 
Wudang said:
(in reply to 3point14)
No, I'd analogize truethat's position (if I may) to be more like teaching a learner drive that people will do stupid, crazy, dangerous, angry things while driving and that it's a good idea to develop defensive skills to keep you out of danger and not to get emotional about it yourself in so far as is possible. Ideally the police would be pulling these halfwits over and thrashing them within an inch of their lives cautioning them. But given we can't always have that maybe we should also look at what coping skills we can help the victim develop.
Click to expand...

That's an excellent way of putting it. :)
 
truethat said:
Yes and I think this is completely psychotic. I think women who snap and kill their husbands are damaged psychologically and a danger to society and should go to jail.

I know of course people are going to rage against me saying that but that's how I see it. I see far too much "victim speak" in this country that perpetuates the idea that a person doesn't have control of their life and their choices.

By continuing this line of thinking we create more vicitims. I would prefer for people to get out of their emotional abyss and look at things rationally and logically. Of course I am realizing that most people are much more emotional than I am.

I have much sympathy for learned helplessness. However, I think it does society and the person a disservice to keep them in the mire. I do know there are certain types of violent men and bullies out there that are damaged as well and can not be rehabilitated.

Yet I see much more enabling behavior on the part of women in domestic abuse situations. I see much more "psychological" issues in the Western culture than in other parts of the world. I do wonder if this is a path that we have been going down so long it seems "real" when it is simply a creation of malaise in society. I pretty much feel the same way about religion.


As a woman I am often not liked by some of my girlfriends for approaching relationship drama with a very practical approach. "He is abusive leave." I lived in a situation where my ex was abusive and I left. I left broke with two kids but I left. I've never understood why people stay in situations like this.

My question, not answer, is are we taking the wrong approach? Are we perpetuating victimhood instead of intelligence and strength? Is it possible to change the flow of behavior by changing the perspective? Can a change of perspective eliminate the psychological drama.

In my personal experience coaching people through trauma, it has seemed very effective. But is it possible to do this long term and across a generalized board.
Click to expand...

You are lucky you got out but it seems pretty clear that you managed not to suffer the psychological damage from your bullying in school and abusive husband. In my mother's case, I kid you not, her first attempt to leave resulted in her being dragged, kicking and screaming into a car, knocked out by having her face bashed against the steering wheel, and then spending the next three days, tied to a bed. If she would have just sucked it up and stopped acting like a victim... :rolleyes:
 
I've always suspected that the most damaging thing that a bullied child can experience, the longest lasting consequences, come from when authority figures are indifferent or even complicit.

To me that's a ticket to antisocial behavior since the idea of a "social contract" of "live lawfully and let the authority figures dole out justice" is laughable to someone that experienced that.
 
Darat said:
But I didn't - what I said was that learning that bullying is the way to deal with something is a bad lesson.
Click to expand...

Then HOW THE **** ELSE ARE THE VICTIMS SUPPOSED TO DEAL WITH IT?

Everything else they can do has already failed, and the spinless appeasers and enablers who are supposed to be authority figures are too busy decrying self-defense as "frowned upon" and "illegal" to do anything to help the victims.
 
Chaos said:
Then HOW THE **** ELSE ARE THE VICTIMS SUPPOSED TO DEAL WITH IT?

Everything else they can do has already failed, and the spinless appeasers and enablers who are supposed to be authority figures are too busy decrying self-defense as "frowned upon" and "illegal" to do anything to help the victims.
Click to expand...

I must concur with Chaos.
Edited by kmortis: 
Removed personal remarks
Defensive violence against bullies is not a good response to bullies' violence. It's only bad advice to a bullied individual, if said individual is not competent to pull it off.

Cpl Ferro
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sgtbaker said:
You are lucky you got out but it seems pretty clear that you managed not to suffer the psychological damage from your bullying in school and abusive husband. In my mother's case, I kid you not, her first attempt to leave resulted in her being dragged, kicking and screaming into a car, knocked out by having her face bashed against the steering wheel, and then spending the next three days, tied to a bed. If she would have just sucked it up and stopped acting like a victim... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I am talking about with emotional pleading. You quite obviously are not stupid and can read. So you know that is not what I am saying. In addition I clearly stated there are psychologically damaged men and bullies that can not be rehabilitated. But most are not the norm. I was specific in pointing out that this does occur.

In my opinion your response and the attitudes like it that say it is black or white are what is part of the problem. It is emotional, dramatic and extreme.

Far more common than the wife that is beaten senseslessly for leaving, or the teen that commits suicide, is the reality of the regularity of situations like this.

By educating women and teens in a responsible intelligent manner, it helps circumvent the emotion that arises and corrupts the reality. Before a situation has reached such a point, there were very likely, many opportunities along the way for escape and understanding. Your mother's husband may have started out like this from day one, but I find that very unlikely. If he did then why in the world did your mother marry him? Or even date him in the first place? Probably because of her emotional response to him rather than her reasonable response.

Many women continue in relationships with abusive men even though the signs were there very early that this person was not a good choice. Yet she married him.

If you want to continue pleading emotion and drama and victim speak that is pretty typical and I accept it. But personally I have no use for any of it because absolutely nothing to solve the problem In my opinion it simply perpetuates it.

Adding another question

Why do you feel the need to say that phrase that way? What purpose does it serve for you in the conversation except to try to project some sense of callousness of the heart on my part?

I ask this because what I see in many situations with women is a vicious cycle of "but he's not that bad, he didn't mean it and I love him! etc etc."

What purpose does it serve to consider the situation from an emotional perspective when you understand that the emotional perspective is the perspective MOST LIKELY to contribute to the woman staying in the relationship?
 
Last edited:
gnome said:
I've always suspected that the most damaging thing that a bullied child can experience, the longest lasting consequences, come from when authority figures are indifferent or even complicit.

To me that's a ticket to antisocial behavior since the idea of a "social contract" of "live lawfully and let the authority figures dole out justice" is laughable to someone that experienced that.
Click to expand...

This is a very good point. I agree.
 
I don't think you can draw too many comparisons between women in abusive relationships and bullied schoolchildren. Hard as it is, the former can leave. The latter cannot.
 
3point14 said:
I don't think you can draw too many comparisons between women in abusive relationships and bullied schoolchildren. Hard as it is, the former can leave. The latter cannot.
Click to expand...

I agree. And also a teen is not as likely to go to the physical extremes as men who are abusers. In addition there is not an emotional connection between the teens the way there is between a romantic relationship.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom