Hope and Optimism on Conquering Bullying?

[beechnut79]

I found the following article to be worth discussing here. But the question that should be considered is: have we really made a lot of progress in this area? Many have complained about being bullied at their workplaces, and while this is for certain a form of harassment, I don't believe it has been cracked down on with nearly the intensity that harassment of a sexual nature has.

I was so bullied back in public school days that my parents removed me from the school and hired a tutor for me until a private boarding school could be found. To a certain extent there was still some bullying there as well, and one of the other children thought that I should be in an insane asylum or sanitarium. As one of at least three self-proclaimed Aspies on this board, it was just something nobody really discussed at that time (the 1950s), as many of those who for whatever reason did not fit in to the larger society were sent to boarding schools as children or sanitariums as adults.

Do you think we have made progress regarding this issue, and has significant research been done into bullying's cause and effect?


https://www.air.org/resource/cautious-op...e-bullying

[pbrower2a]

(07-25-2019, 09:42 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: I found the following article to be worth discussing here. But the question that should be considered is: have we really made a lot of progress in this area? Many have complained about being bullied at their workplaces, and while this is for certain a form of harassment, I don't believe it has been cracked down on with nearly the intensity that harassment of a sexual nature has.

I was so bullied back in public school days that my parents removed me from the school and hired a tutor for me until a private boarding school could be found. To a certain extent there was still some bullying there as well, and one of the other children thought that I should be in an insane asylum or sanitarium. As one of at least three self-proclaimed Aspies on this board, it was just something nobody really discussed at that time (the 1950s), as many of those who for whatever reason did not fit in to the larger society were sent to boarding schools as children or sanitariums as adults.

Do you think we have made progress regarding this issue, and has significant research been done into bullying's cause and effect?


https://www.air.org/resource/cautious-op...e-bullying

Victims of bullying can have scars, but the bullies themselves are far more troubled. Bullying behavior is analogous to the behavior (assault, vandalism, and harassment) that leads to criminal convictions that put one in prison for felony crimes. The victim who is connected with poverty, minority identity, homosexuality, or handicap often finds safe havens in adulthood and clings to them. So the bullies rarely make it to college? There often ends the nightmare of bullying. Emotional and intellectual competence usually correlate.

Bullying has the common thread of a lack of empathy, something that people learn over time if lucky. Empathy is rarely innate. It is socially valuable, but social behavior is learned behavior.

Asperger's syndrome makes one vulnerable to bullying in K-12 education and often in the workplace.

[beechnut79]

(07-25-2019, 12:27 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(07-25-2019, 09:42 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: I found the following article to be worth discussing here. But the question that should be considered is: have we really made a lot of progress in this area? Many have complained about being bullied at their workplaces, and while this is for certain a form of harassment, I don't believe it has been cracked down on with nearly the intensity that harassment of a sexual nature has.

I was so bullied back in public school days that my parents removed me from the school and hired a tutor for me until a private boarding school could be found. To a certain extent there was still some bullying there as well, and one of the other children thought that I should be in an insane asylum or sanitarium. As one of at least three self-proclaimed Aspies on this board, it was just something nobody really discussed at that time (the 1950s), as many of those who for whatever reason did not fit in to the larger society were sent to boarding schools as children or sanitariums as adults.

Do you think we have made progress regarding this issue, and has significant research been done into bullying's cause and effect?


https://www.air.org/resource/cautious-op...e-bullying

Victims of bullying can have scars, but the bullies themselves are far more troubled. Bullying behavior is analogous to the behavior (assault, vandalism, and harassment) that leads to criminal convictions that put one in prison for felony crimes. The victim who is connected with poverty, minority identity, homosexuality, or handicap often finds safe havens in adulthood and clings to them. So the bullies rarely make it to college? There often ends the nightmare of bullying. Emotional and intellectual competence usually correlate.

Bullying has the common thread of a lack of empathy, something that people learn over time if lucky. Empathy is rarely innate. It is socially valuable, but social behavior is learned behavior.

Asperger's syndrome makes one vulnerable to bullying in K-12 education and often in the workplace.

I cannot say for sure that I was ever bullied in any of my workplaces, but often did feel like the black sheep; one who would be among the first to be let go at the first sign of any downturn. Same was true in a couple of singles social clubs I joined in my 20s and 30s. Seemed that I had a negative image among the other members, and firmly believe I was put on a blacklist for dating.

A classic movie dealing with the bullying subject is "Tea and Sympathy" in which a teenage boy is mercilessly ridiculed because he tended to prefer activities such as sewing to playing baseball and was giving the derogatory nickname "Sister Boy".

[pbrower2a]

I remember it. A super-macho type proved to be a homosexual... not that such surprises me in any way anymore.

[Hintergrund]

Sorry to hear that, beechnut.

Teachers I witnessed in my time wouldn't even have been able to stop a kindergarten bully. In a certain way, all older generations have to be blamed:

* The middle-aged "Artists" who felt suffocated in their youth seriously believed that if you never, ever punish kids, everything will be fine.
* The young "Prophets" were busy discussing ideologies or drugs or sex and couldn't be bothered doing a teacher's duty. (Of course, I'm only talking about the lefty Boomers who sought secure jobs where they could talk a lot. The rightists Boomers would rather prefer enjoying the money they inherited from their G.I. dads who dropped dead in their forties/fifties.)
* The old "Heroes" had given up on everyone younger, punishing innocent Xers instead of the Boomers they had spoiled before. Yes, these G.I.s had once successfully fought the Nazis, but apparently, they were only successful because they had competent, pragmatic, truly heroic Nomad leaders. Without them, they suddenly weren't as heroic anymore... - Also, since they tended to think "bigger is better", they replaced many small schools by few big ones; Result: Many more targets for potential bullies!
* The kid Nomads, of whom many had a shitty childhood, had a small percentage of bad apples who spoilt the whole bunch.

Also, there was this idiotic idea (coming from Silents and Boomers) that a) it's the perpetrators who need help, not the victims, and b) bullies just suffer from the fact that they feel low self-worth. Today, we've finally seen that the opposite is the case: Bullies have an inflated self-worth, that's why they think they were allowed to do anything. It was like trying to extinguish a fire with gasoline.

Furthermore: The Nomads learned that you had to be cool and jaded if someone calls you an asshole or worse. But if the same Nomads used bad words at home, they'd make their parents unhappy. But as long as what the bully does to them is worse than what their parents are doing... yes, the old people created an environment where the bullies have more influence on kids than their parents!

It was the perfect storm.

[Anthony '58]

(07-25-2019, 03:54 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: I cannot say for sure that I was ever bullied in any of my workplaces, but often did feel like the black sheep; one who would be among the first to be let go at the first sign of any downturn. Same was true in a couple of singles social clubs I joined in my 20s and 30s. Seemed that I had a negative image among the other members, and firmly believe I was put on a blacklist for dating.

A classic movie dealing with the bullying subject is "Tea and Sympathy" in which a teenage boy is mercilessly ridiculed because he tended to prefer activities such as sewing to playing baseball and was giving the derogatory nickname "Sister Boy".

And this type of bullying will only become more prevalent as the low-church Protestant fundamentalists (as Michael Lind called them) tighten their grip on the culture as Trump & Co. continue to "Make America Great Again."

[Bill the Piper]

(08-14-2019, 08:18 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: Also, there was this idiotic idea (coming from Silents and Boomers) that a) it's the perpetrators who need help, not the victims, and b) bullies just suffer from the fact that they feel low self-worth. Today, we've finally seen that the opposite is the case: Bullies have an inflated self-worth, that's why they think they were allowed to do anything. It was like trying to extinguish a fire with gasoline.

One can have low-self esteem in some area (e.g. sucks at maths) and inflated self-esteem in another (e.g. ability to win in a brawl).

It seems bullies have problems with feeling too much shame:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/...elf-esteem

Then, most bullies I've encountered were generation X.

[pbrower2a]

(12-29-2019, 12:48 PM)Anthony Wrote:

(07-25-2019, 03:54 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: I cannot say for sure that I was ever bullied in any of my workplaces, but often did feel like the black sheep; one who would be among the first to be let go at the first sign of any downturn. Same was true in a couple of singles social clubs I joined in my 20s and 30s. Seemed that I had a negative image among the other members, and firmly believe I was put on a blacklist for dating.

A classic movie dealing with the bullying subject is "Tea and Sympathy" in which a teenage boy is mercilessly ridiculed because he tended to prefer activities such as sewing to playing baseball and was giving the derogatory nickname "Sister Boy".

And this type of bullying will only become more prevalent as the low-church Protestant fundamentalists (as Michael Lind called them) tighten their grip on the culture as Trump & Co. continue to "Make America Great Again."

Tighten the grip on the culture?  They lack a characteristic of those who ultimately succeed in redefining the culture, which is creativity.  They can at most make America... rotten.

[pbrower2a]

(12-30-2019, 09:52 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(08-14-2019, 08:18 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: Also, there was this idiotic idea (coming from Silents and Boomers) that a) it's the perpetrators who need help, not the victims, and b) bullies just suffer from the fact that they feel low self-worth. Today, we've finally seen that the opposite is the case: Bullies have an inflated self-worth, that's why they think they were allowed to do anything. It was like trying to extinguish a fire with gasoline.

One can have low-self esteem in some area (e.g. sucks at maths) and inflated self-esteem in another (e.g. ability to win in a brawl).

It seems bullies have problems with feeling too much shame:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/...elf-esteem

Then, most bullies I've encountered were generation X.

Math has commercial value. Brawling is worthless. Math is worth the effort.

To be sure, people good at fighting might be good soldiers or prize fighters, but those good at either are well-disciplined people who know when to start and quit and follow certain rules (in boxing) and obey orders (in war). Prize fighters rarely get involved in fights out of the ring, and military officers loathe pointless brawls. I suspect that I am the norm in that I have run from plenty of fights before they start. In the military, brawlers face official discipline even harsher than in civilian life. Even if I am neither a soldier not a prize fighter  I have no desire to break a fist on someone else's jaw, and I don't want someone to break my jaw. 

There was a time when many problems allegedly related to low self-esteem. People who have known personal or social abuse, cultural marginalization, handicaps badly mishandled (I am an example of this as I never knew that I had Asperger's syndrome until I was 60; with some appropriate guidance and support early, I might have gotten away with it) and economic hardship uncharacteristic of their society can have low self-esteem; at times resolving the deficiency of self esteem solves much. 

Bullies seem to operate on the basis of "I'm OK, you're not OK", in contrast to what Thomas Harris suggested by the title I'm OK, You're OK in his pop-psychology book (1972) by that name. If seeing Humanity as a whole as largely competent and good -- including oneself -- is the healthy position according to Harris because such is good for bringing out the best in people, "I'm OK, you're not OK" is a position of abuse, exploitation, and humiliation.  Such goes with criminality, abuse of the helpless (including spouses, children, and elders or socially-identified pariahs), swindling, and oppression as a perpetrator. When one's self-esteem or expression of such is excessive or unjustifiable, "I'm OK, you're not OK" implies at the least a need for humbling the person.  Such can operate on a national scale, as with Nazi Germany in which people designated as "life unworthy of life" due to handicaps could be murdered... and we know what followed. Military defeat can do wonders for shaming a nation, and confinement in prison can have such an effect on a personal scale. 

The position "I'm not-OK, you're OK" is one of helpless subordination often as the victim of abuse, oppression, and exploitation. Escape is a cure, but that can be risky. It might be temporarily safer to acquiesce in complicity with an abuser treating someone else even worse, but that itself  may be criminal.  Finally, "I'm not OK, you're not OK"  is a position of complete distrust of  everyone, including oneself.

...I suspect that most of the bullies that most of us have seen are of our own generations.  Many people grow out of it. Those who don't often end up facing the nastiest bully of all: the penal system.

[gabrielle]

(08-14-2019, 08:18 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: Also, there was this idiotic idea (coming from Silents and Boomers) that a) it's the perpetrators who need help, not the victims, and b) bullies just suffer from the fact that they feel low self-worth. Today, we've finally seen that the opposite is the case: Bullies have an inflated self-worth, that's why they think they were allowed to do anything. It was like trying to extinguish a fire with gasoline.

Furthermore: The Nomads learned that you had to be cool and jaded if someone calls you an asshole or worse. But if the same Nomads used bad words at home, they'd make their parents unhappy. But as long as what the bully does to them is worse than what their parents are doing... yes, the old people created an environment where the bullies have more influence on kids than their parents!

It was the perfect storm.

This resonates with me and my experience as a child in the late 70s/early 80s.  Sensitive children were more likely to be punished than the bullies.  When I was bullied during class my teachers (mostly Silent and Boomer aged) never said a word, but I was routinely punished for things like daydreaming or drawing, forgetting to do homework (I struggled a bit with that in the first year it was introduced), often in such a way as to be ritually humiliated in front of class, during the worst year.  I honestly felt like I was hated by my teachers that year, and couldn't understand why they would hate a child.

At home, I would hide my experiences from my parents as best I could, being ashamed and not wanting to upset them.

[Eric the Green]

(08-14-2019, 08:18 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: ...there was this idiotic idea (coming from Silents and Boomers) that a) it's the perpetrators who need help, not the victims, and b) bullies just suffer from the fact that they feel low self-worth. Today, we've finally seen that the opposite is the case: Bullies have an inflated self-worth, that's why they think they were allowed to do anything. It was like trying to extinguish a fire with gasoline.

Furthermore: The Nomads learned that you had to be cool and jaded if someone calls you an asshole or worse. But if the same Nomads used bad words at home, they'd make their parents unhappy. But as long as what the bully does to them is worse than what their parents are doing... yes, the old people created an environment where the bullies have more influence on kids than their parents!

It was the perfect storm.

Generation X too often has reverted to the cynical views of generations previous to the later Silents. Being a Boomer, THAT is the problem I see going on, except that I also see that Silents and Boomers as they got past 40 years old or so have ALSO reverted to a cynical view!

The idiotic idea from the Silents and Boomers was correct, basically. People who bully are acting from the cravings and attachments that possess them, as Buddhists call it. Christians call it temptation. It's not strictly speaking "self-esteem," but it's ignorance of our true nature, which is divine, and which need not be possessed by these cravings and attachments. So it's actually the fact that bullies have a deflated sense of self-worth. 

But just encouraging self-esteem is really not enough to truly liberate oneself from these attachments and temptations. That takes a lot of spiritual practice, which our commercial, materialist and hedonistic culture does not exactly encourage. But such practices have been taught and made available by the new age culture which Silents and Boomers have provided in some places, in blue states at least.

Generation Xers such as yourself have confused this message which came through during the 2T to Silents and Boomers, to the idea that therefore bullies can think they are allowed to do anything.

Meanwhile, allowing bullies to do anything has not exactly been the philosophy among the older generations where law and order was concerned. After the permissiveness, drugs and riots in the ghettos in the late sixties led to a crackdown, sentences were increased and people were locked up too long for minor crimes or for crimes they didn't commit. Hence the need for criminal justice reform today that even conservatives agree with now. Meanwhile concern over sexual misconduct and crime has continued to grow to the point where punishments are often worse than the offenses.

I don't follow your convoluted second paragraph too well. I guess you are saying that bullies that were fellow Gen Xers had more influence than parents on other nomads, because the nomads had been taught by their fellow nomads and by the boomer culture to be cool and accept bullying?

[Eric the Green]

(12-31-2019, 09:38 AM)gabrielle Wrote:

(08-14-2019, 08:18 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: Also, there was this idiotic idea (coming from Silents and Boomers) that a) it's the perpetrators who need help, not the victims, and b) bullies just suffer from the fact that they feel low self-worth. Today, we've finally seen that the opposite is the case: Bullies have an inflated self-worth, that's why they think they were allowed to do anything. It was like trying to extinguish a fire with gasoline.

Furthermore: The Nomads learned that you had to be cool and jaded if someone calls you an asshole or worse. But if the same Nomads used bad words at home, they'd make their parents unhappy. But as long as what the bully does to them is worse than what their parents are doing... yes, the old people created an environment where the bullies have more influence on kids than their parents!

It was the perfect storm.

This resonates with me and my experience as a child in the late 70s/early 80s.  Sensitive children were more likely to be punished than the bullies.  When I was bullied during class my teachers (mostly Silent and Boomer aged) never said a word, but I was routinely punished for things like daydreaming or drawing, forgetting to do homework (I struggled a bit with that in the first year it was introduced), often in such a way as to be ritually humiliated in front of class, during the worst year.  I honestly felt like I was hated by my teachers that year, and couldn't understand why they would hate a child.

At home, I would hide my experiences from my parents as best I could, being ashamed and not wanting to upset them.

School bullying is a more recent concern. Adults didn't care much about Gen Xers anyway, so not much attention was paid to youth behavior in the 2T. Everything was permitted, it seems. Some adults learned to be more caring though, thanks to the self-esteem movement. In some places bullying of boomers by fellow boomers, which had been prevalent in the 1T, declined among young adult boomers themselves in the love-in culture. In the 1T when I grew up, bullying of kids by fellow children, parents and teachers was routine, and not much concern was paid to it, although parenting was becoming more nurturing and permissive, and bullying by parents, although still prevalent, was declining.

Concern over bullies has been a benefit for the millennials. Adult boomer teachers, parents and others were concerned about youth self-esteem and bullying, even while supervision of children was becoming more strict and over-bearing. Concern over gun violence seems to have increased the concern over bullying of late millennials and Gen Zers now during the 4T. School bullying may have increased again in recent years. Our education system still needs more reform. Given the cultural trends instilled within humans for millennia, children grow up as bullies and victims. School needs to teach respect for self and others and self control as well as reading, riting and rithmetic.

[pbrower2a]

As a substitute teacher I have enforced zero-tolerance policies on bullying... with relish. First, bullying is cruel, and cruelty is the purest and most reliable source of evil. Second, it is beyond any question a bad habit best broken as early as possible. There is no positive in bullying, and even for people who are deputized as enforcers it is easier to make a good police officer, prison guard, or soldier out of a good person than it is to make a good police officer, prison guard, or soldier out of a bully. Bullies can be effective, but in all the wrong ways.

[pbrower2a]

We Boomers are aging out of the caring professions and teaching, so we are abandoning the role of enforcing any strictures against bullying. It is now up to X and Millennials to establish and enforce the rules.

[Bill the Piper]

(12-30-2019, 08:58 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Math has commercial value. Brawling is worthless. Math is worth the effort.

To be sure, people good at fighting might be good soldiers or prize fighters, but those good at either are well-disciplined people who know when to start and quit and follow certain rules (in boxing) and obey orders (in war). Prize fighters rarely get involved in fights out of the ring, and military officers loathe pointless brawls. I suspect that I am the norm in that I have run from plenty of fights before they start. In the military, brawlers face official discipline even harsher than in civilian life. Even if I am neither a soldier not a prize fighter  I have no desire to break a fist on someone else's jaw, and I don't want someone to break my jaw. 

All of this is perfectly valid, but the bullies won't understand that. They operate on a short-term perspective, telling them maths will help them make money when they are 30 will only make them laugh at you.

Quote:Bullies seem to operate on the basis of "I'm OK, you're not OK", in contrast to what Thomas Harris suggested by the title I'm OK, You're OK in his pop-psychology book (1972) by that name. If seeing Humanity as a whole as largely competent and good -- including oneself -- is the healthy position according to Harris because such is good for bringing out the best in people, "I'm OK, you're not OK" is a position of abuse, exploitation, and humiliation.  Such goes with criminality, abuse of the helpless (including spouses, children, and elders or socially-identified pariahs), swindling, and oppression as a perpetrator. When one's self-esteem or expression of such is excessive or unjustifiable, "I'm OK, you're not OK" implies at the least a need for humbling the person.

I think their basis is more like "I'm not OK, you're not OK". They use bullying to justify themselves. "At least I'm not learning Elvish like this loser". So they deal with their low self-esteem by attacking peers whom they see as inferior even to themselves.

[pbrower2a]

(01-02-2020, 04:25 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(12-30-2019, 08:58 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Math has commercial value. Brawling is worthless. Math is worth the effort.

To be sure, people good at fighting might be good soldiers or prize fighters, but those good at either are well-disciplined people who know when to start and quit and follow certain rules (in boxing) and obey orders (in war). Prize fighters rarely get involved in fights out of the ring, and military officers loathe pointless brawls. I suspect that I am the norm in that I have run from plenty of fights before they start. In the military, brawlers face official discipline even harsher than in civilian life. Even if I am neither a soldier not a prize fighter  I have no desire to break a fist on someone else's jaw, and I don't want someone to break my jaw. 

All of this is perfectly valid, but the bullies won't understand that. They operate on a short-term perspective, telling them maths will help them make money when they are 30 will only make them laugh at you.

Quote:Bullies seem to operate on the basis of "I'm OK, you're not OK", in contrast to what Thomas Harris suggested by the title I'm OK, You're OK in his pop-psychology book (1972) by that name. If seeing Humanity as a whole as largely competent and good -- including oneself -- is the healthy position according to Harris because such is good for bringing out the best in people, "I'm OK, you're not OK" is a position of abuse, exploitation, and humiliation.  Such goes with criminality, abuse of the helpless (including spouses, children, and elders or socially-identified pariahs), swindling, and oppression as a perpetrator. When one's self-esteem or expression of such is excessive or unjustifiable, "I'm OK, you're not OK" implies at the least a need for humbling the person.

I think their basis is more like "I'm not OK, you're not OK". They use bullying to justify themselves. "At least I'm not learning Elvish like this loser". So they deal with their low self-esteem by attacking peers whom they see as inferior even to themselves.

Maybe it is in part a class distinction in that the middle class that values education and sees a longer time frame  thinks differently. One pattern that I saw in high school in the 1970's was a divide between smokers and non-smokers. The kids taking the more rigorous classes and seeking good grades in those classes that everyone took did not smoke. The others did. Some of us saw smoking as a waste of money and a pointless risk of premature aging and death. The bullies all smoked.  

Those who take their studies seriously often show early signs of middle-aged behavior and otherwise act like the (to the academic losers) teachers. The serious students are to those losers the sell-outs and suck-ups... the quislings of High School. Yes, we are the ones who become the teachers. Bullying is often an attempt to turn the table. For a short time it might work.

[gabrielle]

(12-31-2019, 09:38 AM)gabrielle Wrote: When I was bullied during class my teachers (mostly Silent and Boomer aged) never said a word...

I should probably note, to be fair, that my grade school teachers were probably more often Silents than Boomers, especially in the 70s.

[Anthony '58]

Did bullying decline when the Nazis came to power in Germany?

No. It increased - exponentially.

[David Horn]

(01-05-2020, 10:43 AM)gabrielle Wrote:

(12-31-2019, 09:38 AM)gabrielle Wrote: When I was bullied during class my teachers (mostly Silent and Boomer aged) never said a word...

I should probably note, to be fair, that my grade school teachers were probably more often Silents than Boomers, especially in the 70s.

H-m-m-m.  I saw, and personally witnessed, a fair share of bullying by boys against boys.  I never saw girls get harassed that way.  I guess things went downhill as the 50s became the 60s, and 60s became the 70s.  I got bullied some too, but that was considered a right-of-passage by my mostly GI teachers.  Boys were expected to defend themselves.  Stupid, but par for the times.