The School Bully

[HadleyH]

In Defense of Bullying in America

You know Fletch, this kind of makes sense to me...



"Face it: the bully holds a special purpose in the grand scheme of growing up."

I don't defend bulling, but living here on earth is not all peaches and cream, and the sooner people learn how to deal with the bad, the sooner they will realise that the only way to conquer is with love, or rather Love.
My 2 cents.

 

[Fletch]

Of course all kids are going to see someone's bad side (or show their own), get into fights, and have to learn how to resolve them. This thesis is a little different: we need bullies because we need to learn how to dominate and intimidate in order to get by. Plus, putting them in their place is really, really empowering.

 

[Phil]

Ironically, I just bought a game by Rockstar called Bully. It's quite fun, and you're actually somewhat an anti-hero/bully/peacekeeper. I just wonder if that's what's going through a real bully's head.

 

[Dr Doran]

I am not sure where I fit on this spectrum of respondents here. My experiences might cast some useful light on all of this. Or not. I was never a bully but I fought all the time. I went to super-violent Los Angeles schools (although this was right before the gun epidemic, so it was only super-violent fistfights). First was a Catholic grade school and there was a fight every single day. It was a cheap school: it cost 10 dollars a month if you were poor and 40 if you weren't. I fought constantly but I never started it. It was always someone attempting to get me to knuckle under. Once a kid named John Anderson called me a fag; I punched him in the jaw and he fell down. I called him a chump a month later, but then I apologized because I knew that he now had the right to hit me (since I had set that precedent), and after I apologized we did not become friends, but at least we respected each other. Another time a kid named Nagy Morcos said some insult and I kicked him in the intestines, but not hard, and I apologized and shook his hand after. There was one kid named John McDonald that I fought three times. I know that everyone made fun of him (not I) because he was slightly dirty. I never had anything against him but when he e.g. stole my basketball from my hands I punched him and we fought like that a number of times. I was suspended at least half a dozen times but I was an excellent student and everyone else got suspended too, so they didn't hold it against me. In junior high (forced integrated busing, lots of Crips and Bloods) the normal youth culture was violent and there was always someone who was "feeling his oats" being a little too expansive and trying to provoke a fight. I fought a few times, nothing much. In high school, a kid named Tony Lupton (this was University High School in Los Angeles) started a fight with me once by incessantly ridiculing me, including making faces to imitate me ... I lost my temper and beat him up. He bled all over a bench. Suspension. A few days later I saw him and we shook hands. He never fooled with me again, and I certainly acted respectfully toward him after that: all I wanted was some normal everyday respect, nothing special. One or two more fights in high school, always caused when someone else started ridiculing me or calling me names or in one case (Jeff Schwartz) pushing me around in front of a classroomful of kids; he was clearly trying to exert dominance over me and I gave him stitches in the face, under his left eye. Elbow shot. He could not press charges as 30 students had seen him pushing me before I struck him. When I was a wild kid on the streets in L.A. in the 1980s, there were always feuds of some sort and occasional fights too. When I look back, I am certain that I never started a fight, but I am honestly not sure why I got into so many fights. One thing that I realized, which might be a little sick, is that I enjoyed fighting. I liked the rush, liked the excitement, never minded the pain much, and in all honesty, if someone was really asking for it and goading me repeatedly, I did get a sick thrill out of hitting him until he got really scared and stopped acting annoying. But I never instigated any fight, and if it ever looked like my joking around with someone was causing them to feel insulted, I always took it back and apologized. On the other side of the equation, I never really hated getting hit in the face. It never bugged me that much. I never felt resentful or mad at the world while I was healing from a wound: and I love putting rubbing alcohol in a scrape or cut, I think it feels quite grand. In addition, I never developed the feeling that I had been treated particularly unjustly, even when I got hurt. Once (1991) two guys beat the crap out of me and broke one of my bones quite seriously and entirely deliberately; a deliberate maiming, although I have almost completely recovered (very little sensation in part of my face, but no big deal). But I never felt that any of this was particularly unjust ... maybe excessive, but them's the breaks (no pun intended). I never created a sense of moral wrong at any of this, I just figured that the thing to do was to develop a strategic sense of how to deal with people who wanted to humiliate me (hit them or, if I am feeling very creative and energetic, come up with a clever insult) or harm me (hit them, make a very believable threat, or avoid them if there are too many of them, and figure out how to adjust my behavior so they won't want to start trouble in the future). I also became more careful and polite in how I spoke to people so that I would not inadvertently anger or offend anyone, especially tough guys who were liable to take offense; plus, I cultivated a stern manner that kept people polite to me and less likely to say rude things that can be so very annoying to one. But one of the enemies to survival is getting sentimentally judgemental of your opponents' aims or character. If I felt at some point that I wanted to fight, and I lost, I might have been annoyed if my opponent beat me up worse than he actually needed to, but I got over it and I tried not to demonize the person whom I had fought. I did take a bit of boxing lessons and martial arts at one point and that was nice practice, although the art I took was called Kung Fu San Soo and it emphasized disgusting moves like eye gouges and testicle grabbing; I do not think I would want my children to learn it -- better that they learn something that doesn't require much damage to win, like wrestling or even aikido. (In fact, no one should learn San Soo except soldiers fighting hand to hand, for whom it was originally designed in China.) I do think that learning wrestling or the like is good for children, and it also toughens them; and boys (at least) will need to learn some athletic fighting art so they don't freak out and start crying if some even moderately sadistic bully decides to beat up on them, because if they cry the bully will be pleased and will keep punching; this will increase his sadism. Plus, the consequences of being seen crying can be, unless the kid is in some special school composed solely of educated, upper-middle class super-sensitive liberal flower children, horrid and best avoided. Kids who are being bullied need to learn to calculate the odds as tactically, athletically, and unemotionally as possible and hit back. Not hit to maim or even to injure, just to demonstrate that they are not to be pushed around. For example, knocking someone on the ground is helpful, causes very little real injury, but sends a message. The annoying part is when you do this and the person you knocked down then starts feeling sorry for himself and presses charges even though it was he who started the whole thing. This situation can happen; I have faced it. I think that when it comes to bullies, the first thing to do is to avoid getting emotional about it if possible, during the bullying (hard to say to a 14 year old, I know!), and if it is too late, to avoid getting judgmental or emotionally involved after the fact. Don't demonize them or psychoanalyze them (besides a modicum of sympathy for their own sickness) but stay away from them. Don't ever let them see you sweat. Ideally, avoiding them should be a rational strategy without debilitating fear and worry and humiliation. The three words are strategy, strategy, strategy. Once they see how unemotional you are toward them, you cease to be an interesting target. [Hopefully they will instead channel their aggression into a mutually satisfying sadomasochistic relationship with a consenting adult and then they will exorcise whatever has bothered them onto someone who enjoys humiliation and pain and gets aroused by it ... a win-win situation for both of them, and, one hopes, incredibly hot if they are into it and can channel their aggression like that in a manner harmless to innocent bystanders (I think of the freaky yet disturbingly erotic film The Night Porter with Charlotte Rampling).] When it comes to seeing someone years later that used to bully you, I would be uneasy too! It could be very uncomfortable, and a lot of things can go wrong (but the likelihood is that all parties will be polite and the ex-bully will only impress you with his/her lameness). There is a guy who hit me a number of times about 15 years ago, after a feud of several years: he was an ex-skinhead, and he caught up to me in a parking lot in 1989 or so, and sucker-punched me and I was too confused and surprised to even put my hands up to defend myself. All I could think to do was stick my finger in his eye, which effectively stopped the punching. He backed off then, and I spat blood at him. (I may have hit him with the blood; I can't remember.) But my point is, I know he is friends with a female friend of mine in LA and I may see him some day if I visit her. I have, from time to time, thought about what I would say: perhaps, "Last time I saw you you were hitting me over and over in the face. Sorry I stuck my finger in your eye. No hard feelings, I hope. How's life? Married yet? Any kids? Finish school? Parents still alive? How's your brother Sep?" I'm not really sure. I certainly don't bear him a grudge; I only think he was operating under a funny program. Maybe considering these people rather hapless dorks instead of monsters is the ticket to dealing with old humiliation and anger; and ceasing to consider yourself innocent (and a victim) is a useful way to cope too. It's a big, but very useful, attitude adjustment. Self-pity is a great way to shoot oneself in the foot and to continue to feel humilation and shame, a vicious circle that in my experience can only be broken by the most ruthless refusal to see oneself as an innocent victim and to feel sorry for oneself -- not that I am suggesting anyone here was indulging in self-pity, it's merely often a natural reaction when one is a child. Anyway, I don't know if any of this is useful. Call it the perspective of a non-bully who fought all the time and who (I must admit) kind of enjoyed it. Sorry if I ran on too long.

 

[carebear]

A lot of insight there.

One thing, it isn't "sick" to enjoy fighting. It may be sick to go out of your way looking for fights but it is human and natural to enjoy doing something you do well and to feel pleasure at being victorious in a struggle.

Before we as a society, fairly recently, decided all violence was wrong and uncivilized, no matter the context, there was no expectation that the just use of force should cause any psychological harm to the just actor. Now it is de rigeur that a person attacked unprovoked, who justifiably defends themselves and is victorious, should somehow be cast into mental torment and regret.

If the other guy starts it, they bear the total responsibility for the consequences. All the defender should feel is satisfaction at protecting themself successfully and, perhaps, some sorrow that the other guy forced the situation on them in the first place. No guilt attaches to the righteous defender.

 

[mysterygal]

maybe it's just a guy thing I"ve always hated fighting! Sure, throughout life you need to learn how to deal with these kind of people..but to say that they're a necessary part of life? I don't agree with it. I personally avoid people with that sort of personality, I'm at the age where if they want to act like they're still in grade school, so be it, but they're for sure not going to bring me into their chaotic world that they so love.

 

[Fletch]

Funny thing tho...if an adult acts like a grade school bully over a parking space or a bad burrito, we shame hi/r and maybe laugh. But if s/he does so in the name of some abstract principle like Freedom, Property, or Moral Values, there is serious debate about the means vs. the ends.

 

[Feraud]

Funny thing tho...if an adult acts like a grade school bully over a parking space or a bad burrito, we shame hi/r and maybe laugh. But if s/he does so in the name of some abstract principle like Freedom, Property, or Moral Values, there is serious debate about the means vs. the ends.

Well that is because there are more imortant things in Life than parking spaces or burritos.

I must be getting old, I cannot believe I just said that.

 

[Fletch]

Yeah, and unless I miss my guess, you capitalized Life un-ironically...

 

[Paisley]

Vigilantism comes in when authority breaks down.

 

[Paisley]

A lot of insight there.

One thing, it isn't "sick" to enjoy fighting. It may be sick to go out of your way looking for fights but it is human and natural to enjoy doing something you do well and to feel pleasure at being victorious in a struggle.

Before we as a society, fairly recently, decided all violence was wrong and uncivilized, no matter the context, there was no expectation that the just use of force should cause any psychological harm to the just actor. Now it is de rigeur that a person attacked unprovoked, who justifiably defends themselves and is victorious, should somehow be cast into mental torment and regret.

If the other guy starts it, they bear the total responsibility for the consequences. All the defender should feel is satisfaction at protecting themself successfully and, perhaps, some sorrow that the other guy forced the situation on them in the first place. No guilt attaches to the righteous defender.

Even Jesus told his disciples, "If you have a cloak, sell it and buy a sword."

 

[jamespowers]

Even Jesus told his disciples, "If you have a cloak, sell it and buy a sword."

And it wasn't "beat your plowshares into swords" it was the other way around.

Regards,

J

 

[Dr Doran]

A lot of insight there.

One thing, it isn't "sick" to enjoy fighting. It may be sick to go out of your way looking for fights but it is human and natural to enjoy doing something you do well and to feel pleasure at being victorious in a struggle.

Before we as a society, fairly recently, decided all violence was wrong and uncivilized, no matter the context, there was no expectation that the just use of force should cause any psychological harm to the just actor. Now it is de rigeur that a person attacked unprovoked, who justifiably defends themselves and is victorious, should somehow be cast into mental torment and regret.

If the other guy starts it, they bear the total responsibility for the consequences. All the defender should feel is satisfaction at protecting themself successfully and, perhaps, some sorrow that the other guy forced the situation on them in the first place. No guilt attaches to the righteous defender.

Hello Carebear, I agree with you for the most part. And I think that you are right when you note that only recently have we as a society decided that all violence is reprehensible. Is this evolution or just a weird change explained by the demographic of the rising Baby Boomers who are in charge now and who happened to live through an unusually safe moment in world history, the post WW2 economic miracle? I am not sure. I am disgusted, however, when person A starts a fight, person B swats him a little, and person A then raises hue and cry when he started the whole thing. Some people are in the habit of trying to pretend that there are clear good guys and clear bad guys and that any conflict consists of an oppressor and a victim. A (rational) historian (who at least tries to be as objective as possible) can tell you that this is seldom the case. Alternatively, people want to believe that testosterone does not exist or that it is illegitimate and that a punch between two grown men (I am not talking about a man hitting a small child, an elderly person, or a woman, which is completely different) is the most awful thing in the universe. The thing that public policy should do is find ways to channel competitive urges constructively (sports are a marvelous way to do this, as well as competitive elections) but not deny their existence, as though social engineering can remake our DNA. And I must express great disagreement for those who think we are blank slates who can be conditioned any which way (I recommend the book The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker for more on this, a fine book).

However, I must respectfully disagree with your statement "if the other guy starts it, they bear total responsibility for the consequences." I think that even if the other person started it, I would NOT be justified in truly maiming him and I would feel wrong about breaking his nose or jaw. I would be justified in knocking him down and that's about it ... Maybe a sore jaw but not a break. That's going too far.

I agree with mysterygal for the most part too: but mysterygal, you must realize that in many places and in many times, one doesn't have a completely open option as to whether one wants to fight. You cannot always walk away. Even aside from freak situations at liquor stores in bad neighborhoods: in many situations, you have to see these people the next day and you cannot afford to lose face. It is best to avoid violent conflicts but a moderate display of power is sometimes unfortunately necessary, particularly in certain all-male situations. The best thing is to keep it moderate. And those who think this is only high school should realize that this is how things have been decided for the entire prehistory and most of the history of the human race, until the comparatively late invention/acquisition of a system of law that punishes blood feuds between families, as Aeschylus brilliantly dramatized in "The Oresteia" of 458 BC. This system of law is fragile and always in danger of breaking or of being broken. Unlike the situation in "The Oresteia," we do not have divine beings upholding order; we have to do it ourselves.

But I fear I have diverted the conversation which was about facing bullies from one's past. And that can be a big unpleasant thing. Acting as though you got over it is always good, and subtly, politely showcasing your success since those miserable high school days is effective too. Life does consist, to some degree, of making displays to enemies. We may be between the apes and the angels, but unless we have the unusual ability to sculpt our environments radically, there is an ape side (not just bonobo, either) that will come into play sometimes. And it is very very difficult to avoid making enmities of at least a small magnitude. Even my aunt, a highly spiritual person who has devoted her life to assisting the poor, has made enemies (within the social service hierarchy). Even professors of Classics have bitter enmities and ugly rivalries (I have stories) and when there are threats of violence in that rarified field I think we are all slightly pleased because there is blood pumping in the dessicated lecturers of the ivory tower after all: they are not robots or gray machines but actual men.

And when worse comes to worse, you can always pull a "Dexter" and syringe the person, prepare the rubber tubing, scalpels, etc. like that astronaut planned to do the other day with her rival.

 

[carebear]

Funny thing tho...if an adult acts like a grade school bully over a parking space or a bad burrito, we shame hi/r and maybe laugh. But if s/he does so in the name of some abstract principle like Freedom, Property, or Moral Values, there is serious debate about the means vs. the ends.

In theory, one should only use violence in defense of life, liberty, property or even intangibles like "justice", when the alternatives are not effective. Not in an aggressive manner.

 

[Dr Doran]

In theory, one should only use violence in defense of life, liberty, property or even intangibles like "justice", when the alternatives are not effective. Not in an aggressive manner.

Fully agreed. For the most part. Unfortunately, sometimes stuff happens.

 

[carebear]

Fully agreed. For the most part. Unfortunately, sometimes stuff happens.

Defense doesn't mean you wait for the other guy to swing, just that you're reasonably sure he's about to before you act.

 

[CanadaDoll]

Defense doesn't mean you wait for the other guy to swing, just that you're reasonably sure he's about to before you act.

Can you actually do that?
Here if I defended myself, and the other guy didn't get to hurt me first I'd get charged with assault.

 

[carebear]

Can you actually do that?
Here if I defended myself, and the other guy didn't get to hurt me first I'd get charged with assault.

The requirement to use force in defense varies a bit by state (and folks should check), but in general (based on Common Law) all that is required to justify defensive force is that, in the eyes of a "reasonable person" (a legal standard that if in question will be determined by a jury), you had reason to believe that your assailant's threatened use of force was imminent (threatened right now, not "I'll get you..."), and that your assailant had the means (a weapon, training, physical size) and the ability (was close enough, wasn't on the other side of a door) to fulfill his threat.

You don't have to be hit in order to hit back, nor do you necessarily have to let him even start to swing, as long as it is "reasonable" for you to believe that the attack was coming right then. Since a single blow to the head or chest can kill, letting the other guy strike first is nonsense. (see boxing or the kids who die from baseball's to the chest for examples)

Of course, if your local prosecutor wants to make an issue of it, it will be your job to convince a jury of that, as self-defense is an affirmative defense. (Yes I assaulted/killed him, but it was non-criminal (justified) because _________.)

Typically force can be met with only similar or slightly superior force, you can't use deadly force in response to a slap. ...unless you can show that such a blow may in fact put you at risk of death or grievous bodily harm (say you have a spine condition or some brain issue or something).

In general, you cannot have been in the commission of a crime to claim deadly force (if you are robbing someone and they fight back you can't claim "self-defense" against them) nor can you have been the aggressor (picked the fight or provoked it). Also, "mutual combat" ("let's take this outside pal") will usually remove both party's right to claim self-defense.

 

[CanadaDoll]

Man I'd like to live where you live!

A while back there was a person robbing stores at knife point in the immediate vicinity of my job, I heard a girl was injured, not seriously but still enough to scare her real well.
My boss had to leave me in charge alone, and told me explicitly I was not to defend the store in any manner, should this person show up, because unless I had a bruise or cut to show the cops that I'd been attacked first, I'd be in the legal wrong. Cause a knife at the throat is somehow more okay..:rage:

That makes no sense to me. [huh]
When they caught the jerk, he told them it was easier to rob stores than get a job:rage:

 

[carebear]

Man I'd like to live where you live!

A while back there was a person robbing stores at knife point in the immediate vicinity of my job, I heard a girl was injured, not seriously but still enough to scare her real well.
My boss had to leave me in charge alone, and told me explicitly I was not to defend the store in any manner, should this person show up, because unless I had a bruise or cut to show the cops that I'd been attacked first, I'd be in the legal wrong. Cause a knife at the throat is somehow more okay..:rage:

That makes no sense to me. [huh]
When they caught the jerk, he told them it was easier to rob stores than get a job:rage:

What I described is pretty much how self-defense law works across the US. Even in areas with aggressive DA's the law remains about the same , it just varies how hard they'll go after you (if at all). What will get you a pat on the back in Virginia will get you jailed in DC.

A knife is by definition a "deadly force" threat. Most stores recommend submission because, most of the time, it prevents anything but the theft happening and they have insurance for that. If anyone trys to resist, the fear is that folks will be hurt and civil liability may ensue. If you don't have the training, mindset and means to resist, you are probably better off giving up the cash drawer.

To bring this back more on topic, the problem with such submission to a bully or any other attacker is that you are now depending on the good will of a proven aggressor to not hurt you further. There's no guarantee that the robber, now faced with a compliant, apparently helpless, victim will decide to be satisfied with the cash. All he knows is he told you to do something and you did it, you can only pray he decides not to ask for more.

More and more aggressor's, trained by society that folks will not defend themselves, that passerby are being told by authorities not to intervene and in fact often choose to "not get involved" and that the authorities really aren't going to show up in the nick of time, are choosing to take further liberties than they may have originally intended. Robbery or mugging turns into unprovoked physical and/or sexual assault on cowering, defenseless, non-resisting victims. Victims are even killed for no reason after offering no resistance and giving up the cash or whatever.

Depending on a proven bad guy's "good will" to not become a worse guy is not the best way to keep yourself safe in the end.

But, if you are constrained by the rules of your school to not fight back against a bully, or by the laws of your city to not fight back against an attacker, you are pretty much left with only that as an option, unless you choose to break the rules and risk those consequences.