|
Post by Oriet on Jun 7, 2009 12:34:45 GMT -5
I maintain that the bully should be the one removed. In fact, the bully ought to be sent to Juvie, and the parents ought to be arrested for child abuse! While I agree that it should be the bully who is removed, and that depending on the severity it should have further consequence, especially for repeat offences, jumping to the conclusion that the parents need to be arrested for child abuse is a non sequitor. First, because they *taught* their kid to be a bully. Kids don't just wake up one day and decide, "Hey, I'm gonna pick on the kid with glasses today, and maybe I'll beat on the [gay/disabled/adopted/different] kid and steal his lunch money!" They have to be *taught* to behave that way, that might makes right. This is wrong. All it takes is for a kid to realise they can gain something by force, whether through observing such an interaction on the telly, including news and age appropriate children's shows, or completely on their own, such as trying to force what they want on another who then complies, or just by paying the slightest attention to power dynamics from those who have authority. Also, if a kid has not been exposed to an aspect of another student, that other student is then different and goes against what they know as a norm; this then can become an easy target as they're readily visible, and they can get further backing from others that are like them. The authoritarian mindset affects children as well as adults, the "us versus them" mentality can and does develop among a groups of people who have not learnt it from elsewhere, and even among groups who have been taught how to accept individualism and differences. So no, they do not have to be taught how to pick on other kids, they easily learn that all on their own. Secondly, because they are legally responsible for their child's actions (until the age of 18), they are thus abusing the bully's victims by proxy. Only to an extent. While they do hold some responsibility, they do not stand in by proxy in any sense. Now, if they refuse to do anything about the kids problem, or worse, encourage the kid to bully others, then they should face legal reprimand, as they are aiding and abetting the behaviour. However, some kids are problem kids even when they have excellent parents who do everything they can to raise them correctly for geting along with others, and so before the parents could face any sort of charges it would have to be proven that they were aiding and abetting; that cannot be assumed just because the child repeatedly bullies others. Third, and this goes back to point one, since they obviously taught their kid to be a bully, it's highly likely that they are, in turn, abusing the bully. No, it does not mean that. You are trying to make the dynamics far simpler than they are, and are falling into fallacies that "kids don't know anything." Kids are often quite smart enough to figure out how to work around a system, work within the rules enough to get away with what they shouldn't, to antagonise their victims so that the victims get in trouble while they don't even get so much as a telling off. They can very quickly learn the power dynamics, loopholes in the rules (or at least ways to bend them), and how to manipulate those in charge, through faking emotions and lying about the situation to put the victim more on the defensive, and thus seemingly more hostile so the bully can play the victim. None of that has to be taught to them. Now, that doesn't mean they aren't also the victim of other abuse, as I know that happens far too often as well, but please don't make the fallacy that just because that happens sometimes, that it always happens that way. The teachers/administrators that ignore it, or worse, punish the victim, also ought to be charged as accessories to child abuse. This I agree with. As rules are often set up, the victim often gets punished. Hell, when I was in high school I got beat up, and I didn't fight back at all because I didn't want to get in trouble. I still got suspended, for getting beaten up. It doesn't make any sense really, it just victimises the victims more. [Edited to fix tag fail.]
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jun 7, 2009 14:33:49 GMT -5
I still got suspended, for getting beaten up. What the fuck!?
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Jun 7, 2009 14:44:19 GMT -5
I still got suspended, for getting beaten up. What the fuck!?Seconded. What the flying FUCK?!
|
|
|
Post by rookie on Jun 7, 2009 16:58:22 GMT -5
@ Everyone: Holy shit did my thoughts get fucked up somewhere. I never advocated for adults to "turn a blind eye', "punish the victim", "stand by" or anything of the sort. I'm not defending bullys. I'm not blaming victims of bullys for their victimization. If it sounded like that, I'm sorry.
Zachski, I didn't mean those who are physically or mentally disabled and cannot grasp the concept of self defense or cannot physically defend themselves.
Also, that person who is different enough to "mark him as target one from day one". What happens as he grows? He's still going to be target one from day one. What will change?
I was in grade school and my bully was Tim Kearny. He used to beat the living shit out of me. When I finally told an adult, Tim was suspended. When he came back, it got worse for me. And I have a hard time believing that Tim was the only one who would attack worse the one who told an adult. I also remember when I broke his nose with a head butt. He stopped bullying me and focused his attention elsewhere. He never stopped being a bully even though he was suspended a few times and was finally transferred to another school.
To everyone else again, at what age or state in life should a person start to learn not to let someone take something from them? At what age or stage in life should we expect a person to stand up for themselves?
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jun 7, 2009 20:34:32 GMT -5
]I also remember when I broke his nose with a head butt. He stopped bullying me and focused his attention elsewhere. He never stopped being a bully even though he was suspended a few times and was finally transferred to another school. Here's what would happen to many kids who tried to do what you did 1. They fight back against the bully 2. The system which has previously turned a blind eye to this suspends the kid who fought back 3. The bully makes their life even worse because the system punishes those who defend themselves or others. Here's the problem with your response to the "different" argument. As you get older, most people get more mature and realize that the differences as a child don't matter much. The kid with tourrettes who was so twitchy and vulnerable that even the goddamn NERDS picked on him will, with the proper education (even if he has to be isolated to do it), grow up to be a network engineer that actually becomes a productive member of society. But if he is repressed by the system, labelled "special needs" by the teachers who can't deal with helping him, and picked on so much that he will never ever feel any self worth, then he'd be lucky to even FLIP BURGERS. By the way. Just because I've been home schooled does not mean I've never dealt with bullies. I remember once that one of my socialization attempts was on a playground. I was physically held down, had sand kicked in my mouth, one of the kids made lewd advances on me (and we were, like, 11?), and the adults sat nearby and did fucking nothing about it. There wasn't anything I could do. EDIT: You may have noticed that I have something against the public school system. There's a lot of good public schools out there, I'm trying not to forget that in the face of things like kids being punished for being beaten up and a school turning a blind eye to a 13 year old boy getting anally raped by a gang of 14 year old kids. However, there's two reasons I am most frustrated with public schools. 1. Their tendency to let kids that require even a little special attention (not special needs, but kids who have a different learning style) fall through the cracks 2. Their failure to actually educate. There's a reason Japan has many of the most intelligent people on this planet, and it has nothing to do with skin color. This reason is also tied in with the first reason.
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Jun 7, 2009 20:48:27 GMT -5
To everyone else again, at what age or state in life should a person start to learn not to let someone take something from them? At what age or stage in life should we expect a person to stand up for themselves? Shit, my 2.5 year old is already trying to figure that one out. She gets her back up and refuses to co-operate and/or starts ordering us around. She knows just how far she can push her mother too (I'm more unpredictable so she doesn't try to push me quite as much).
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Jun 7, 2009 22:19:27 GMT -5
Frankly, parents should be teaching their kids not to let someone take something from them.
Unfortunately, the parents that do teach this, tend not to teach their children A) to share; B) compassion; or C) that the world does not, in fact, revolve around them. As a result, these children often become bullies themselves.
It must be balanced with teaching compassion and sharing.
Children should be taught to be like the housecat: soft and cuddly, yes, but she will defend what is hers, if needed. That's not to say that hostility should be met with hostility -- I prefer to confuse the fuck out of the hostile ones just by being disarmingly cute. (It helps that, apparently, I come by it naturally. Must be a kitteh thing.)
ETA: I'm not sure if that was coherent. If it wasn't, I apologize. I just scraped out my pipe (weekly maintenance) and am smoking the resin (why waste cannabinoids?). I will try to clarify later. For now, I'm just going to shut up, I'm rambling again.
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Jun 8, 2009 1:50:23 GMT -5
I still got suspended, for getting beaten up. What the fuck!?Yep. It happened cause I was still involved in the fight, even though there were hundreds of witnesses to attest that I didn't fight back, cause it happened right outside the cafeteria as people were filing in for lunch. After that incident I resolved that I would fight back (as I knew how, as I was learning ryukyu kempo in the evenings), since I'd get the same punishment no matter what I did, but luckily no other incidents happened.
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Jun 14, 2009 12:15:58 GMT -5
I agree with the home-schoolers insofar as I don't think any state should have the right to ban that practice. Parents should not be compelled to send their children into other hands for eight hours a day - not unless they demonstrate that they're unwilling to educate their kids thoroughly, or that they're incapable of it. And therein lies the problem -- most homeschooling parents AREN'T willing to give a thorough education, and are ENTIRELY INCOMPETENT. They want to use a book of FAIRY TALES as a "textbook". Homeschooling SHOULD be banned, because all it does is turn out social retards (at best), and drooling christfag breeders (normally).OUCH. No. Not at all. Some people actually homeschool for reasonable reasons (such as their child is unable to keep up with the class due to a learning disorder, and faces social isolation regardless, and seems to learn better when Mom or Dad explains things). Even for such cases, there are a lot of homeschooling groups that are available for the children to interact with one another, and there's nothing stopping them from hanging out with friends after school hours. Admittedly, some of the groups are very stringently religious, but it's possible to find secular groups. Yes, by and large, it seems that a lot of homeschooling is done for absurd reasons (such as my mother freaking out because my tiny town's elementary school wanted me to be tolerant of gay couples and their children- horrors!) but no, it should not be banned. The teaching parents should be held to the same requirements as public school parents, in that they should have no less than an Associate's degree and should demonstrate that they're capable of preparing lesson plans, explaining concepts, etc.
|
|