Feminism

Users who are viewing this thread

Snakes in the loo. Snakes snakes in the loo.

Now imagine that sung like Samuel L. Jackson covering bees in the (tha) trap.

Also related
Dodes said:
The-Ultimate-Weapon-The-Spoon.jpg
 
Harkon Haakonson said:
What sort of consequences then can a puny freshman inflict? Run to the teacher and tell? Tends to aggravate bullying. :razz:
Though I am genuinely curious.

I've gotten people suspended/expelled before. But I've also resorted to theft/destruction of property. Sabotage of educational performance. Tricking someone into embarrassing themself publicly. That sort of thing.

In any case, when bullying fails to intimidate the target of bullying, it doesn't serve much purpose for the bully.
 
It seems to be a cultural thing. Some people resort to physical violence or psychological abuse as a form of counter-bullying while others choose to ignore it or avoid conflicts. Just as the forms of bullying also varies. I appreciate the honesty, but that doesn't really really seem much better than bullying itself.
 
Danik said:
It seems to be a cultural thing. Some people resort to physical violence or psychological abuse as a form of counter-bullying while others choose to ignore it or avoid conflicts. Just as the forms of bullying also varies. I appreciate the honesty, but that doesn't really really seem much better than bullying itself.

I don't know about the culture on your planet but I'm from Earth where ignoring a bully only leads to more bullying. Resorting to violence to get a bully off of your case may be the only effective counter measure due to his limited intelligence and beating a bully down is much better than being a bully because, well, jeez, the victim of the bullying tried to ignore the dumb ape but eventually had no choice but to defend himself.

 
I for one loved his chosen word (counter-bullying), it makes it sound like the global counter terrorist effort (both active and passive) are actually just another set of terrorist activity disguised as hitting back and/or prevention of further terror attacks.
 
Well now... Implying that bullies only will target you if you're a weakling does sound like victim blaming.
Bullies will attack people for various reasons, weak people just understandably suffer the most.
 
Well according to what I know from what the folks doing the health promotion research of school yard bullying, the answer tends to be either narcissistically confused (I don't know what, I just don't like his face and how he's looking at me) or completely engulfed in webs of cognitive dissonance (It's his fault that I bullied him because something he does just makes me want to bully him). But another factor tends to be that the bully is being bullied elsewhere and wants someone weaker than him to take out his frustration on (not that their juvenile mind could make that conjunction yet).

What I'm trying to say is that science backed evidence seems to suggest that the word various used in Weaver's post should be taken with a bit of salt as most bullies have no clue why they do the thing they do at the end of it, but just do it anyway for the perceived power and popularity they think they hold over peers.
 
Which is my point. If you deny him power and popularity as a result of his bullying, he won't do it. You don't have to be popular or powerful to pursue this strategy - just identify where and how the bully is weak and make it clear that you can make life miserable for him (or her, I suppose) if they continue. They can administer as many beatings as they want, but if you show that this is not an effective deterrent, you win. Cultivate the right impression with others and it is not even necessary to realize your threat for it to be respected.
 
@CEH: there's another possibility as well that relates somewhat to being a victim-bully: bully or be bullied yourself. It maintains the power structure and acts as negative reinforcement.
 
Nah, I asked that question and the researcher asserts that it's actually referring to the fact that the bully may be bullied themselves in or outside of the school environment. Usually it's outside the school environment. She also added that her observation suggest that the bully power structure is very real, but very fragile, so the idea that there is a power structure that needs to be upheld can be thrown out the window because kids who gather around the bully will leave him as soon as the victim stops being bully-able. Basically they are only there for a free show and the bully never had any power to begin with.

The more realistic negative reinforcement that leads to bullying is that the bully themselves are stuck in a peer group of bullies, which in that case points less towards power structure, and more towards mere social acceptance.
 
Weaver said:
Well now... Implying that bullies only will target you if you're a weakling does sound like victim blaming.
Well, after I stood for myself and pushed down the bully from some stairs, I blamed myself that I didn't do it sooner.
Bullies will attack people for various reasons,
such as?
weak people just understandably suffer the most.
Yeah, because they let the bully do his **** again. And again.
 
I dunno. After I fought back successfully the aggressor returned with friends. I wanted to be left alone, but fighting back ended with me being suspended from the school. :lol:

Only in high school have I realized that you can't be left alone all the time and some degree of social interaction is necessary. I'm on neutral grounds with most people, have a couple of people I'd go as far as calling friends, and a few people that I despise more than others but know how to avoid/confront in a manner where I can ridicule them without immediate consequences.

You probably could claim that I was weak earlier and that I've become strong(er). And I guess I would sort of agree. It's not like a bully would pick the popular, muscular, middle class/upper-middle class guy to pick on. That would be counterproductive.
 
Untitled. said:
I dunno. After I fought back successfully the aggressor returned with friends. I wanted to be left alone, but fighting back ended with me being suspended from the school. :lol:
In my case it wasn't the fighting back that did it. I was told it was the ways I fought back that was special to the point that their (bullies') friends would probably think twice before agreeing to back up the bully on his next confrontation. A bit like a natural born psychopath I suppose. :lol:

Also on an interesting note, I never actually took to the idea that I wanted to be left alone. I saw my school life as me living out my normal life with my school mates and people I would meet and be friends with down the line, and that the inclusion of bullies were just a interference in my normal life, and that I was only getting rid of said interference. I don't think like that nowadays but I guess back then was a completely different story.
 
Bromden said:
Bullies will attack people for various reasons,
such as?
Dude, really? You don't see how ****ty your reasoning is?
Saying that the reason behind bully's attack is victim's weakness is the same as saying that the reason behind rapists' attack is the victim being too sexy.

Weak people are just the easiest prey. Bully's drive to harm other people does not come from someone being too weak. It's always about psychological problems and **** happening in the family.
Bromden said:
Yeah, because they let the bully do his **** again. And again.
Yeah. Dude's too weak? Had it coming. Survival of the fittest, right?
I'm pretty convinced this cult of "strength" projected by male parents onto male kids is what maintains the culture of bullying in schools in the first place.
 
Weaver said:
psychological problems
This is not true based on what I know. Kids who are capable of psychopathic acts are often the silent ticking bomb types and can be victims of bullying themselves. Kids who do actively bully tend to dress up their bullying in fancy words and excuses, pointing more towards normal mental health that lacks prior education in empathy (Empathy education actually managed to curb as much as 86% of active bullying in Australia in kids the 8-16 year old age group).
Weaver said:
and **** happening in the family.
This however is very true, however the point to be remembered is that the trend points towards the possibility that not all bullies come from unstable families (Even mine didn't noticed they were mentally abusing me until another relative (a trained nurse) intervened) and not all kids from unstable families are prone to be bullies. However solid number does state that around 70% of bullies from age 8-16 come from families that have prior records of household instability (domestic violence, drug abuse, sexual abuse etc)
 
You are totally misinterpreting what I say. I was talking from the victim's viewpoint, and didn't even touch the subject of "who's fault is it" (=blaming someone). So either reply constructively or go out and play or something, because I don't care if it's the american's fault or the followers' of Zoroaster.
Bromden said:
My reasoning might be ****ty, but yours is nonexistent. Please answer this question before you start accusing me as a bullying-enabler.
Weaver said:
I'm pretty convinced this cult of "strength" projected by male parents onto male kids is what maintains the culture of bullying in schools in the first place.
I see the psychomonger has crawled out of your ass. Could you  tell me what made you pretty convinced of that? Because I have some pretty solid ideas what makes the bullies do bullying, but then you'd accuse me of protecting the bullies and thus standing with everything that's wrong with modern society.

1 new post
 
Back
Top Bottom