Being bullied

[Uncayimmy]

Hmmm. Yes, after I was bullied I was definitely more afraid and more avoiding of situations that might result in bullying. See the last lines of my OP. I think this would likely be true of most bullying victims. However, does this study speak to whether this was cause and effect. Were the victims like this before they were bullied?

Some of the studies attempt to look at that which comes first, and they have seen patterns in personality traits. Obviously, the bullying behavior can affect some of the things they look at, but how much? Not everybody who says, "Yes, I have been bullied" is in the "I was physically tortured for years and unable to fight back for fear of my life" category. There's a wide range of bullying looked at in these studies including being bullied just once within a certain period of time.

So, go right ahead and dismiss these patterns among victims, non-victims, escaped victims, and new victims as simply being the result how being bullied has changed them. I guess the same goes for bullies. They were probably 50th percentile kids in most areas, but it was the success of bullying that transformed their personalities.

See Attachment
Olweus (1973, 1978) identified two types of victims: the passive victim and the provocative victim. Passive victims are described as anxious, insecure, appearing to do nothing to provoke attacks, and appearing not to defend themselves. Provocative victims are described as hot-tempered, restless, and anxious, and ones who will attempt to retaliate when attacked. Perry et al. (1988) identified victims in a similar manner, using the terms "high-aggressive" and "low-aggressive victims." However, Perry et al. (1988) found that the probability of a victim being provocative or passive was approximately equal whereas Olweus (1984) reported fewer than one in five victims as provocative.

Olweus describes the passive victim as lonely and abandoned at school, often without friends. They are not aggressive, do not tease, and are likely (if boys) to be physically weaker than same-age peers. Results of parent interviews suggest that these boys were sensitive at a young age and have closer contact and more positive relations with their parents (particularly their mothers) than boys in general. Teachers identify these children as overprotected by parent

 

[Senex]

I think this is a case of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

If that's Latin for you deal with UncaYimmy be my guest

 

[LibraryLady]

Another quote from the same article:

That is, some of the most extreme victims also were some of the most aggressive children in their sample. Perry and colleagues (1988) suggest that victims constitute a heterogeneous group and can be categorized in the following manner: victimized/rejected, aggressive/
rejected, and victimized/aggressive/rejected. The victimized/rejected child would reflect Olweus' "passive victim" profile while the victimized/aggressive/ rejected would reflect the "provocative victim" profile. As Perry et al. (1988) suggest, the victimized/aggressive/rejected student might aggress against weaker children but then be victimized by stronger, aggressive peers. This would explain the fact that some of the most extreme victims in their sample also were some of the most aggressive students.

The victims appear to be pretty heterogeneous, some passive, some aggressive. Different counseling techniques are needed for the different types of victims.

I'm not sure how they predict who will be the victim until after the bullying happens.

Also, this article is 16 years old. I believe there is more recent research to draw upon.

 

[qayak]

The ones still alive are normal people running around from what I saw of them on the myspace group for my high school. There was three of them that in 12th grade died from drunk driving.

I think you are counting the hits and ignoring the misses. I had many school mates die in drunk driving incidents, some in high school some after. (Six died in one single vehicle accident two weeks before graduation.) The non-bullies definitely died more often than the bullies.

 

[jiggeryqua]

Back in high school, there were four boys - Bob, Jim, Tim and Zach (Not their real names) - who bullied me because Bob had overheard me say to Pete (again, not his real name) something to the fact that while more women may attempt suicide, more men actually succeed. Bob wen back to his friends and told them that I had told Pete to kill himself. From then on, Bob, Jim, Tim and Zach would either insult me openly in class (despite several warning from the teachers), or spread lies about me among the other students, such as "Pete moved away because Fnord told him to go hang himself" and "I heard Fnord call you a mother-f*****".

One day, they ganged up on me - Jim and Tim beating on me, Bob goading them on, and Zach shouting insults at me along with the others. They were caught by the principal, who pulled them off of me. He later directed one of the counselors to investigate, and after talking to Pete (who had since moved away) and other students, she reported that not only had I not told Pete to kill himself, but that I was actually giving him moral support over some rough family issues (such as his father being transferred and having to move out of state), and that Bob's "misinformation campaign" was motivated more by his own personal dislike of me than anything else (I had bested him in several classroom debates). Bob insisted that his own version of the story was the only correct one, however.

Jim and Tim were expelled almost immediately, and Bob followed the next day, all after threatening the principal and almost everyone else involved. Zach was a little more careful, and was only threatened with suspension, so he kept his hostility towards me to himself from then on (most of the time). I was later to learn that after high school graduation, Bob, Jim, Tim and Zach eventually developed problems with employment, homelessness and personal relationships (in varying degrees of each).

I never did find out any more about Pete. I hope he's okay.

Cool story, bro. You must have been positively astounded when such similar events played out so recently on another forum you use...even down to the initials of the other players. Of course, they'd tell a slightly different version of the story, including the earlier episode where you were 'suspended' for trying to persuade the rest of the <ahem> 'school' that 'Jim' was a paedophile (probably because he, along with B and Z and I'm not sure who T is, 'bested you in so many classroom debates'). When you returned, you swanked around talking about being banned for what you "may or may not" have done. I hear that 'Jim' has quit that forum, the principal having been shown to be unprincipled.

Seriously, Fnord, people are using this thread to discuss real instances at real schools and workplaces that had a real and lasting impact on them. It's grotesque to post here just to weave a self-serving fable about your online 'bullying'. What you said to 'P' may not have been 'goading him to suicide', but it was callous and uncaring. We all hope P's okay, but some of us showed it at the time.

My apologies to the rest of you, it's not my habit to import drama from elsewhere, but I couldn't let this stand.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Another quote from the same article:



The victims appear to be pretty heterogeneous, some passive, some aggressive. Different counseling techniques are needed for the different types of victims.

I'm not sure how they predict who will be the victim until after the bullying happens.

Also, this article is 16 years old. I believe there is more recent research to draw upon.

I presented a number of studies, and while you should critically examine each one, you're just looking at one. Second, my goal was to establish that I am certainly not alone in looking for similarities and seemingly finding some. For this I have been chastised, I don't believe that's fair.

As an individual (rather than an authority figure), I have probably intervened in more bullying events than anybody in this thread because I despise bullying. When I suggest for victims to look inward, I am doing so in an effort to reduce the bullying they have to endure. While I may be totally wrong in my theories, my heart is in the right place. I happen to believe that avoidance as a first resort is wrong, but I don't look down on people who suggest it because they, like me, think they are helping. With that said...

Let's take this a step further (or backwards). There is by definition some similarity among many of the victims. This is due to how bullying is defined, which I concede is not a universal definition. However, I think it's fair to say that when you take an act by A towards B, how they react to the situation affects whether it is called bullying or not.

I've been trying to think of when I was ever bullied. As I have pondered this, I think there were a few attempts I may not have considered as attempts at bullying. For example, I was a quarterback in high school - tall, strong and fit, but not nearly as big as say a defensive lineman. One of them ("Bill") was an all-county wrestler in the heavyweight category. He was clearly bigger and stronger than me, so right there we have the imbalance of power element.

One day in the locker room, Bill started riding my ass for some strange reason. I mean, I'm a likable guy, right? I believe I received a shove or two - nothing "violent" but definitely physical aggression of the sort routinely seen by bullies. Well, rather than let him dictate where it was going, I took it up about three more levels, and we got into a pretty nasty fight that took several people to break up. It was a good thing, because in the limited confines of the locker room he had an advantage. I hurt him way more than he hurt me, which was really only a factor of time since had we been alone, he would have crushed me eventually.

Based on everything I have read, that would not have been classified as a bullying event by researchers. It would have been considered just a fight. I would have been considered a non-victim. Thus we have at least one similarity, which is taking actions to restore the balance of power in some manner or at least make the act unpleasant for the bully. Or stated another way, maybe the similarity is not so much with the victims but with the non-victims.

As I was reading the research, it brought back memories of the "provocative" victims. I remember one I wrote off as a lost cause because from my perspective he was, in fact, "asking" for it at times. Not all the time, but there were plenty of times where he, for lack of a better term, would poke the bear. He suffered more bullying than anybody I ever saw. It was so bad that he was actually made to leave class five minutes early to go to the next class because it was simply not safe in the hallways for him. And yet this kid would mouth off to "bullies" who were ignoring him. Rather than passively take it, he would "freak out" so bad it was almost like a bad Saturday Night Live skit, so people actually found it "entertaining" in a way that watching the shy girl with braces and no boobs get teased in gym class was just sickening. I consider him to be an outlier, and I can think of no way to help a kid like that short of counseling, which he did receive.

Side Note: As best as I can tell, this guy ended up "running" for governor in Maryland on a platform of general amnesty for all prisoners, distribution of weapons to the common people, and Maryland's secession from the union. I point this out because I'm sure some folks will look down on me for calling this kid a lost cause.

There were other, far less extreme examples. As a bigger kid (bear), I remember smaller kids, almost always guys, poking me (to use a metaphor). I pretty much ignored them because I was taught growing that with "power" comes the responsibility to use it wisely. I learned early on that authority, real or perceived, will always be challenged. It should get no more attention than it deserves, which is usually not much.

I recall those same kids periodically getting into scraps with bigger kids and losing, sometimes repeatedly. More often than not the response they got from the bigger kids was out of proportion. And quite often they would end up in a "dance" that lasted weeks, months and even years. Is that bullying? Hard to say, really. Sometimes the bigger kids would instigate it knowing full well the outcome, and that, to me, is bullying. But is lightly poking a bear and getting mauled bullying?

I hadn't really considered those victims in my posts, but after reading up on bullying, there does seem to be, for lack of a better term, a class of victims that loosely match what I remember. I wonder how some of those guys remember things. Do they believe they did nothing whatsoever to contribute to the situation? Would you (generic you) consider them victims of bullying? Personally, I'd say some of the times they clearly were victims while other times they were just being annoying little pricks annoying people who don't react to it well.

In this forum we have heated debates on whether a cop bullied somebody in a situation. Some people argue that (say) the teenager was being an obnoxious little twerp to the cop and got what he deserved while others say that smacking the kid on the head and breaking his skateboard was a huge overreaction by a cop with a gun on his hip. I tend to argue that cops are too aggressive and should be secure enough to put up with a little lip. Others think that those in power (not just cops) should always be treated with the utmost respect.

Just food for thought.

 

[LibraryLady]

I'm sorry. I apparently don't have as much reading time as you, you lucky duck. Give me a little time?

 

[samanthakayee]

I'm typically opposed to homeschooling, but never considered homeschooling as an anti-bully move.
.

I am also doing it for another reason. My boys are learning so much more with the one on one interaction they get from me and the Charter school. My kids are using the same books as the public school is so they are not missing out on any lessons. I can take them up to 4 days of the week and they will get a teacher who teaches the subject to them if for some reason they are not getting it after me or my husband explains it to them.
They play with other kids 0n our street so they are still getting to be around kids outside of the home.

Some of the homeschooling I am opposed to also. I think it is harmfull to do the unschooling method. Or using the Bible for Social studies. None of that is done in my home.

 

[LibraryLady]

This is a very interesting article, one of those recommended by UncaYimmy. I found this quote

Dan Olweus, a researcher in Norway, conducted groundbreaking research in the 1970s exposing the widespread nature and harm of school bullying.3 Bullying is well documented in Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand, providing an extensive body of information on the problem. Research from some countries has shown that, without intervention, bullies are much more likely to develop a criminal record than their peers,††† and bullying victims suffer psychological harm long after the bullying stops.

very interesting. It seems borne out by the comments here, especially about the lingering effects.

As to the fact that many victims are passive and don't defend themselves, you also criticize the case you cited where the victim did try to strike back. In my own experience, I found that fighting back verbally only stoked the fire, and fighting back physically was out of the question. It would have been five against one, for one thing, and I was not very physically adept. Klutzy would be a more accurate description.

I do believe that had the principal or teachers interfered, it would have cleared up more quickly. My parents did speak to them, but to no avail.

 

[Helen]

As to the fact that many victims are passive and don't defend themselves, you also criticize the case you cited where the victim did try to strike back. In my own experience, I found that fighting back verbally only stoked the fire, and fighting back physically was out of the question.

This is my experience as well. Fighting back against the mental bullying that many here describe has its own difficulties. How do you stand up against being ostracised? How do you counter slander, when we all know how hard it is to prove a negative?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Do you really think anyone here buys your self-righteous "just trying to help" crap? You saw a bunch of people commiserating and sharing bad situations and decided that you were going to be some sort of guru and dispense your "invaluable" wisdom from upon high.

This struck a chord because it reminded me of what my wife is going through with one of her dog trainers, who has been instructing her in sheep herding.

She has been working with her for over a year, training our dogs to herd sheep and my wife to be a handler. All that time, she has pushed on her the necessity of being extremely aggressive with the dogs, to show them who's boss, and to quash any "nonsense" from the animals. This involves screaming at or even beating the dogs to get them to do what is required. My wife has done her best to incorporate these methods with the more humane practices she has learned for years, rationalizing it by saying "It's a different culture", and, "it's for the dogs' own protection", and, "these dogs are resilient, they can take it."

However, one of our dogs became so turned off sheep that she ignored them even when they were just a few feet away. The other dog would run and cower in the corner when he heard sheep dog trials on TV. My wife knew something was going awry.

She had a long, frank discussion with her trainer, but didn't make much headway. She was told that this aggressive approach was good for her, that many of her students found a new strength and independence by learning to assert themselves with their dogs.

The real problem here was that she was assuming that it was the fondest wish of every person that they could be a commanding, dominating presence wherever they went. If you didn't stand up for yourself, you were a weakling and got what you deserved. People needed to learn that aggressive attitude, and she was providing it.

My wife tried to explain that this was not in her nature, but to no avail. If you don't want to be a bully, then you're a weakling, end of story.

They had a big falling out about this last weekend, and my wife has found a new trainer and is cutting off her relationship with the old one. Ironically, the trainer has indeed taught her to stand up for herself... just not in the way she intended.

 

[Cainkane1]

This struck a chord because it reminded me of what my wife is going through with one of her dog trainers, who has been instructing her in sheep herding.

She has been working with her for over a year, training our dogs to herd sheep and my wife to be a handler. All that time, she has pushed on her the necessity of being extremely aggressive with the dogs, to show them who's boss, and to quash any "nonsense" from the animals. This involves screaming at or even beating the dogs to get them to do what is required. My wife has done her best to incorporate these methods with the more humane practices she has learned for years, rationalizing it by saying "It's a different culture", and, "it's for the dogs' own protection", and, "these dogs are resilient, they can take it."

However, one of our dogs became so turned off sheep that she ignored them even when they were just a few feet away. The other dog would run and cower in the corner when he heard sheep dog trials on TV. My wife knew something was going awry.

She had a long, frank discussion with her trainer, but didn't make much headway. She was told that this aggressive approach was good for her, that many of her students found a new strength and independence by learning to assert themselves with their dogs.

The real problem here was that she was assuming that it was the fondest wish of every person that they could be a commanding, dominating presence wherever they went. If you didn't stand up for yourself, you were a weakling and got what you deserved. People needed to learn that aggressive attitude, and she was providing it.

My wife tried to explain that this was not in her nature, but to no avail. If you don't want to be a bully, then you're a weakling, end of story.

They had a big falling out about this last weekend, and my wife has found a new trainer and is cutting off her relationship with the old one. Ironically, the trainer has indeed taught her to stand up for herself... just not in the way she intended.

I don't understand yelling at or beating a dog. I was playing with my dog once and I accidentally hurt him while we were roughhousing. He never roughhoused again. If you hurt a dog even accidentally they never completely trust you again.

 

[TraneWreck]

As an individual (rather than an authority figure), I have probably intervened in more bullying events than anybody in this thread because I despise bullying.

This was one of the funnier posts I've read in a while.

I didn't realize "probably intervening" in hypothetical bully situations sanctioned self-absorbed, obnoxious sanctimony.

But I do love the Ubermensch theory of bullying. This is pure arrogance without substance. It doesn't matter how "tall, strong and fit" you are, nor how un-victimlike you happen to be, there is always someone waiting to make you their bitch. It's social support structures that keep bullies at bay.

If you grew up on the South-side of Chicago, you either would have joined a gang to resist the bullies (and become one yourself), or you would have gotten your ass kicked over and over, and, had you continued to resist, would eventually have been killed.

But the most amusing aspect of your post is that you glowingly describe an episode wherein you get in a fight with a teammate, using the one-time incident as evidence that this Ubermensch could never be a victim. But a short breath later you describe a kid standing up to his bullies as "poking the bear."

Such clarity! When the Ubermensch fights back the whole world takes notice, trumpets blare, and Goliath falters, but when the poor sap with a victim profile refuses to slither away, well, he was asking for it.

Don't you guys see?

 

[aggle-rithm]

I don't understand yelling at or beating a dog.

No one can, that's why they refer to it as "applying pressure" to make it sound more reasonable.

 

[Uncayimmy]

This was one of the funnier posts I've read in a while.

I didn't realize "probably intervening" in hypothetical bully situations sanctioned self-absorbed, obnoxious sanctimony.

Well, now you know. I'm glad to put the E back in JREF for you.

But I do love the Ubermensch theory of bullying. This is pure arrogance without substance. It doesn't matter how "tall, strong and fit" you are, nor how un-victimlike you happen to be, there is always someone waiting to make you their bitch. It's social support structures that keep bullies at bay.

Is that supposed to have any real meaning? I mean, it sounds all good what with the big words and fancy sentence structure. But underneath it all you'er basically arguing that seat belts, air bags and defensive driving skills don't matter because you can still get hit by a bus and killed.

If you grew up on the South-side of Chicago, you either would have joined a gang to resist the bullies (and become one yourself), or you would have gotten your ass kicked over and over, and, had you continued to resist, would eventually have been killed.

Okay.

But the most amusing aspect of your post is that you glowingly describe an episode wherein you get in a fight with a teammate, using the one-time incident as evidence that this Ubermensch could never be a victim. But a short breath later you describe a kid standing up to his bullies as "poking the bear."

Yeh. That's exactly what I intended. I'm so glad you got the message. I was worried that people might think I was pointing out difficulties in detecting bullying behavior in what are usually described as fights.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I presented a number of studies, and while you should critically examine each one, you're just looking at one. Second, my goal was to establish that I am certainly not alone in looking for similarities and seemingly finding some. For this I have been chastised, I don't believe that's fair.

As an individual (rather than an authority figure), I have probably intervened in more bullying events than anybody in this thread because I despise bullying. When I suggest for victims to look inward, I am doing so in an effort to reduce the bullying they have to endure. While I may be totally wrong in my theories, my heart is in the right place. I happen to believe that avoidance as a first resort is wrong, but I don't look down on people who suggest it because they, like me, think they are helping. With that said...

Let's take this a step further (or backwards). There is by definition some similarity among many of the victims. This is due to how bullying is defined, which I concede is not a universal definition. However, I think it's fair to say that when you take an act by A towards B, how they react to the situation affects whether it is called bullying or not.

I've been trying to think of when I was ever bullied. As I have pondered this, I think there were a few attempts I may not have considered as attempts at bullying. For example, I was a quarterback in high school - tall, strong and fit, but not nearly as big as say a defensive lineman. One of them ("Bill") was an all-county wrestler in the heavyweight category. He was clearly bigger and stronger than me, so right there we have the imbalance of power element.

One day in the locker room, Bill started riding my ass for some strange reason. I mean, I'm a likable guy, right? I believe I received a shove or two - nothing "violent" but definitely physical aggression of the sort routinely seen by bullies. Well, rather than let him dictate where it was going, I took it up about three more levels, and we got into a pretty nasty fight that took several people to break up. It was a good thing, because in the limited confines of the locker room he had an advantage. I hurt him way more than he hurt me, which was really only a factor of time since had we been alone, he would have crushed me eventually.

Based on everything I have read, that would not have been classified as a bullying event by researchers. It would have been considered just a fight. I would have been considered a non-victim. Thus we have at least one similarity, which is taking actions to restore the balance of power in some manner or at least make the act unpleasant for the bully. Or stated another way, maybe the similarity is not so much with the victims but with the non-victims.

As I was reading the research, it brought back memories of the "provocative" victims. I remember one I wrote off as a lost cause because from my perspective he was, in fact, "asking" for it at times. Not all the time, but there were plenty of times where he, for lack of a better term, would poke the bear. He suffered more bullying than anybody I ever saw. It was so bad that he was actually made to leave class five minutes early to go to the next class because it was simply not safe in the hallways for him. And yet this kid would mouth off to "bullies" who were ignoring him. Rather than passively take it, he would "freak out" so bad it was almost like a bad Saturday Night Live skit, so people actually found it "entertaining" in a way that watching the shy girl with braces and no boobs get teased in gym class was just sickening. I consider him to be an outlier, and I can think of no way to help a kid like that short of counseling, which he did receive.

Side Note: As best as I can tell, this guy ended up "running" for governor in Maryland on a platform of general amnesty for all prisoners, distribution of weapons to the common people, and Maryland's secession from the union. I point this out because I'm sure some folks will look down on me for calling this kid a lost cause.

There were other, far less extreme examples. As a bigger kid (bear), I remember smaller kids, almost always guys, poking me (to use a metaphor). I pretty much ignored them because I was taught growing that with "power" comes the responsibility to use it wisely. I learned early on that authority, real or perceived, will always be challenged. It should get no more attention than it deserves, which is usually not much.

I recall those same kids periodically getting into scraps with bigger kids and losing, sometimes repeatedly. More often than not the response they got from the bigger kids was out of proportion. And quite often they would end up in a "dance" that lasted weeks, months and even years. Is that bullying? Hard to say, really. Sometimes the bigger kids would instigate it knowing full well the outcome, and that, to me, is bullying. But is lightly poking a bear and getting mauled bullying?

I hadn't really considered those victims in my posts, but after reading up on bullying, there does seem to be, for lack of a better term, a class of victims that loosely match what I remember. I wonder how some of those guys remember things. Do they believe they did nothing whatsoever to contribute to the situation? Would you (generic you) consider them victims of bullying? Personally, I'd say some of the times they clearly were victims while other times they were just being annoying little pricks annoying people who don't react to it well.

In this forum we have heated debates on whether a cop bullied somebody in a situation. Some people argue that (say) the teenager was being an obnoxious little twerp to the cop and got what he deserved while others say that smacking the kid on the head and breaking his skateboard was a huge overreaction by a cop with a gun on his hip. I tend to argue that cops are too aggressive and should be secure enough to put up with a little lip. Others think that those in power (not just cops) should always be treated with the utmost respect.

Just food for thought.

Two questions re etiquette:

1. should one post "tl;dr" for each too long post not read?

2. does "tl;dr" falsely imply that you would have read the post were it more succinct?

Thanks.

 

[TraneWreck]

Is that supposed to have any real meaning? I mean, it sounds all good what with the big words and fancy sentence structure. But underneath it all you'er basically arguing that seat belts, air bags and defensive driving skills don't matter because you can still get hit by a bus and killed.

Yes, I am arguing that in certain circumstances the behavior of the victim will do little to disuade bullying.

Certainly there are tactics that can forestall certain bullies in certain circumstances. But just read these posts. In my case, athletics kept me from having any troubles. For others, athletic success brought on jealousy-motivated bullying.

You're trying to draw broad conclusions on specific behaviors that aren't supported by any of the evidence you've cited. In so doing you've managed to insult all the people posting about sensitive experiences and arrived at this circular explanation for why you were above all that:

"I wasn't bullied because I was superior, didn't exhbit 'victim-like tendencies.'"
"How do you know you didn't exhibit those tendencies."
"I wasn't bullied."

Yeh. That's exactly what I intended. I'm so glad you got the message. I was worried that people might think I was pointing out difficulties in detecting bullying behavior in what are usually described as fights.

Well thank goodness. Someone needed to make a self-gratifying post explaining something trivial against which no one argued.

Whatever your intent happened to be, in a rush to describe a conquest from your youth, you inadvertently dismissed your own argument. What are we to make of this "victim behavior?" You fought back, not a victim. Some kid you went to school with tried to stand up, was bothered even more. Was it the expression on your face? Or your choice of clothing?

I have to say that I wouldn't be approaching this exchange withe the same strident tone if it wasn't so apparant that you're attempting to denegrate other members' histories by advancing your experiences as exemplar. There is humility in understanding that coincidence, rather than perfection, is what keeps one safe from the bullies.

There are countless situations in which any individual could be placed that would instantly lead to bullying. That's not to say that within a culture there are certain indicators of who will become a victim and who will become a bully, but pretending like you were of such awesome character that you were forever beyond victimhood is blindly arrogant.

That's why I brought up the Chicago Projects. Take you as you exist now, in all your car salesman intimidating glory, and drop you in Cabrini Green. Let's see how long it takes local thugs to bow your proud shoulders. Any of us, placed in a situation where predators were allowed to attack us without mitigation, would quickly be humbled, and we're adults.

We are extremely lucky to have been born in a world where the authorities generally stand for us. That protection needs to be extended to children in a much more robust manner.

There are interesting psychological issues involving the relationship between victims and their abusers, but surely you can see how the manner in which you entered this discussion eliminated any chance of a serious discussion.

 

[ShadowSot]

I have to say, school opened up more opportunities to be bullied than I got when in my own neighborhood.
At home, I could defend myself physically, and had no problem doing so.
At school, where the actions were mostly verbal, I had less of a response.
I'm not a clever person, so I tended to take the "Hulk Smash" approach to things, this developed from earlier in life when it was my physical abilities that counted more than my mental.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

This struck a chord because it reminded me of what my wife is going through with one of her dog trainers, who has been instructing her in sheep herding.

She has been working with her for over a year, training our dogs to herd sheep and my wife to be a handler. All that time, she has pushed on her the necessity of being extremely aggressive with the dogs, to show them who's boss, and to quash any "nonsense" from the animals. This involves screaming at or even beating the dogs to get them to do what is required. My wife has done her best to incorporate these methods with the more humane practices she has learned for years, rationalizing it by saying "It's a different culture", and, "it's for the dogs' own protection", and, "these dogs are resilient, they can take it."

However, one of our dogs became so turned off sheep that she ignored them even when they were just a few feet away. The other dog would run and cower in the corner when he heard sheep dog trials on TV. My wife knew something was going awry.

She had a long, frank discussion with her trainer, but didn't make much headway. She was told that this aggressive approach was good for her, that many of her students found a new strength and independence by learning to assert themselves with their dogs.

The real problem here was that she was assuming that it was the fondest wish of every person that they could be a commanding, dominating presence wherever they went. If you didn't stand up for yourself, you were a weakling and got what you deserved. People needed to learn that aggressive attitude, and she was providing it.

My wife tried to explain that this was not in her nature, but to no avail. If you don't want to be a bully, then you're a weakling, end of story.

They had a big falling out about this last weekend, and my wife has found a new trainer and is cutting off her relationship with the old one. Ironically, the trainer has indeed taught her to stand up for herself... just not in the way she intended.

I hate this kind of people. Yes, I've run into this before, but the excuse for treating the dogs badly then was "look at how the bitch treats her pups". Beautiful appeal to nature, I suppose there's no harm in letting dogs lick their own wounds either, since it's how they do it in Nature!

 

[Uncayimmy]

Yes, I am arguing that in certain circumstances the behavior of the victim will do little to disuade bullying.

Against whom are you arguing? Has anybody in this thread argued otherwise? I haven't. In fact, I have repeatedly and explicitly stated that I am not dealing in absolutes and recognize a variety of situations there there's little that can be done. I've even given examples.

Glad we got that cleared up.

You're trying to draw broad conclusions on specific behaviors that aren't supported by any of the evidence you've cited. In so doing you've managed to insult all the people posting about sensitive experiences and arrived at this circular explanation for why you were above all that:

Straw man and hand waving duly noted along with a personalization ("insulting"). I said I am looking for patterns. Researchers have looked for patterns, and some have found them (links to studies already posted). As for insulting people, put on your big boy pants. If you or others can't handle somebody suggesting that there are things victims could have done to reduce their suffering, then ignore this thread.

Well thank goodness. Someone needed to make a self-gratifying post explaining something trivial against which no one argued.

This is getting ridiculous. Whether I'm the biggest ******* in the world or the sweetest little old lady doesn't make a difference as to whether I am right or wrong. I thought the Membership Agreement here said to attack the argument not the arguer. The correctness of my position is not affected by self-gratification. Your repeated attacks on my character are simply part of your emotions filling in the gaps your intellect cannot.

If you want to believe that victims are completely helpless and simply random targets, that's your mistake. But if you believe even just a little bit that there are things at least some can do to reduce their suffering, then get off my ass.

That's why I brought up the Chicago Projects. Take you as you exist now, in all your car salesman intimidating glory, and drop you in Cabrini Green. Let's see how long it takes local thugs to bow your proud shoulders. Any of us, placed in a situation where predators were allowed to attack us without mitigation, would quickly be humbled, and we're adults.

Oh, the drama! If only UncaYimmy would go to the Chicago Projects he wouldn't be suggesting that there are things a 51 year old woman could do when her supervisor verbally berates her.

Your analogy is predicated in the assumption that bullies randomly select their targets. I'm neither the first nor the last to suggest that bullies have patterns in selecting their targets. Some are factors one cannot control, and others are more malleable. We also have escaped victims and repeat victims, and one of the studies I cited found similarities with non-victims and escaped victims that were not shared by repeat victims. Feel free to attack me for bringing up these issues. I'm sure you think it's much better to perpetuate feelings of helplessness.

It's interesting that what has happened to me in this thread could be construed as bullying. I have been repeatedly attacked on a personal level with my motivations not merely questioned but assigned to me despite my protestations to the contrary. I have been called names and ridiculed. I have had my position misrepresented (well, lied about). I have been ostracized (people publicly telling others my posts aren't worth reading).

If it's bullying, does it contradict my arguments? Nope. I have displayed some of the characteristics that bullies seek out such as independence of thought and lack of support. Could I have avoided it? Yep. I could have kept my mouth shut and simply gone about helping victims like I always have rather than discussing it publicly. I could have called upon a few of my friends on this board to join me in this thread, but I didn't feel the need.

I'm not sure I'd call it bullying because the treatment is merely annoying. However, I'm sure I could put on a skirt, run off to some other board and find plenty of sympathy for how I was treated for simply presenting unpopular ideas.