Bullying

Post Reply New Topic

Momsparky, I hear what you are saying, and I think we simply disagree. I simply see a difference between intentionally annoying someone because you can and causing someone humiliation or fear. One kid is a budding jerk. The other is a budding sociopath. The target of the first kid needs to learn how to navigate a world that is not fair and filled with people who are jerks. The target of the second kid needs to be protected from criminal activity.

From my own perspective...the kids who teased me/annoyed me/irritated me/etc. clearly did so because they could. It wasn't bullying. It was insensitive crap that insensitive kids do. It hurt. I didn't like it. But it was not traumatizing over time, and I'm glad no one ever told me it was, or that it should be.

The kids who bullied me did so because they wanted to humiliate me. It didn't just hurt, and it wasn't that I just didn't like it. It was damaging to my psyche on a deep level. I actually wish that someone would have recognized that there was a difference between teasing and bullying and put an end to the bullying. But they didn't. I think they viewed it all as "teasing." That failure to discriminate by people in a position of power and authority (even though I could clearly see the difference between the two) caused long-term ramifications. I think the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. We are still not discriminating between the two behaviors, we are still lumping them all together even though they are not the same, and we are still setting the stage for long term consequences.

Plus, there isn't always a power differential and to assume there must be one for bullying to occur is dangerous. Some kids who lack social power bully to try to gain social power. But they don't have it. They want it. Some of the cruelest interactions I witnessed when I was a kid were between two social misfits, one of whom was trying to escape his social misfit status. The reality is that in the eyes of the kids with the social status, both kids were equally pathetic and worthy of keeping their inferior status. And they were not bullying the kid who was being bullied. But his equally socially inferior peer was. Without a doubt. But in the eyes of the people who controlled "social power," neither kid had it. No power differential.

Actually, for as ashamed as I am to admit it, in middle school, I once bullied an equally non-statussed girl in an attempt to gain status. I caused her a great deal of public humiliation. Make no mistake. It was classic bullying. It didn't work (it didn't raise my status) and I felt horrible. I felt even worse when I got "caught" by the principal and the girl tried to defend me, even after I had done something so horrible and degrading. Though we were never friends, I apologized to her, even up until the day we graduated. Somehow, even at the tender age of middle school, and even though I hurt her, she knew why I did it, and that is why she never held it against me.

But by your definition it is if it is done repetitively, if the target wishes to be included, and if the "doer" is of higher social status then it is bullying, and excluding is a behaior. So, say the most popular girl in my daughter's class never lets her sit at her lunch table (repetitive), my daughter wishes to (refusal is unwanted), and...well, I already said this girl was the most popular girl, my daughter is not, so there is definitely a power differential. This is not bullying and I get very angry when people try to suggest to my daughter that it is.



I would say that this fits my definition, and not yours. Continually announcing to everyone that they are not invited to a party, etc. is done with the intent to humiliate. That intent and the resulting humiliation the struggling girl faces makes it bullying. Take the announcement out of it, and it is just mean behavior. Or maybe even just the girl choosing who she wants to be friends with.

It is the underlying intent to humiliate, intimidate, or cause fear that is missing from your definition, along with the resultant humiliation, intimidation, and fear. Some kids are mean, but it is not because they seek to cause humiliation or intimidation, and they generally cause feelings that are not related to humiliation or fear. It is simply because they don't care how they make other people feel. One kid is a jerk and one is a bully. They are not the same.

I also think that bullies are created, not born. The parents of the mean girl that taunts my daughter believe their daughter can do no wrong. I have personally witnessed the girl push to the front of a line in front of her parents while they laugh as if it is cute. This girl has obviously been rewarded for being stronger and for being assertive. Her parents are to blame really in my opinion and I feel sorry for her as her life will be pure hell I am sure. I also witnessed at a party where the girl cried because she couldn't go first and her parents consoled her like it was such a horrible thing for her to have to wait her turn. These parents are doing a great harm to the world by creating the little monster.

Here's the problem with defining bullying entirely by intent: we can't read the bully's mind. Any bully worth their salt will merely say something like "Well, I didn't mean to upset him or her." or, the one I remember most from my childhood "Don't be so sensitive!"

This is also in part the problem by restricting bullying to specific behavior: we don't know what qualifies as humiliating on the part of the victim.

The definition I provided offers, for the most part, a quantifiable system of behavior: the behavior can be observed to be a pattern, the recipient of the behavior can attest that it is unwanted. The differential in power can be a little more difficult to quantify (although in bullying situations it is often obvious, much like Stewart's definition of obscenity,)

I might agree that the word "unwanted" is not strong enough, but it isn't "could take it or leave it," nor "not my preference." I suppose one could substitute the word "upsetting" but again, that means you have to read the mind of the recipient. If you say "I don't want you to _________ " it is pretty clear that a boundary has been set.

I agree that a part of teaching children to set boundaries is making sure all children, even popular ones, have access to them and that they are respected. I think the situation where the child is asking to be included and is rebuffed, even if it is repetitive, doesn't count because that child (who would be the recipient or victim) is initiating the interaction. They still have control (they can choose to avoid the interaction by not asking to be included.)

I disagree that it would not be bullying if the announcement wasn't made. Bullying does not have to use words. It can be actions without words. Deliberate exclusion is a form of bullying, no matter which way you butter it. If you intend to do something mean, it's bullying and if it's because you don't care about the feelings of the person you are treating badly that is saying that you are fully aware it may make them hurt but you don't give a damn which is almost as bad as intending to hurt them. It's all bullying.

Someone being thoughtless, could be considered a jerk. But someone who consciously does something knowing that it will likely or definitely cause hurt but not giving a damn is a bully.

I've pretty much covered the rest of my views in the other bullying thread. Just for some official words on it:

http://www.atl.org.uk/publications-and- ... ssment.asp

Momsparky, I agree with you 100% that making intent relevant makes it a sticky situation. Sometimes it is clear (like the kids who used to spit in my face on a daily basis...would be very difficult for someone to believe them when they said they didn't know it would humiliate me), but sometimes it is not. But I think that definitions that leave it totally in the eye of the receiving end are also very sticky. Especially if bullying is made into a criminal activity, which I believe it should be. What about the person who believes people driving down their street on motorcycles are bullying them because they are bothered by the noise? They may genuinely perceive themselves as being bullied, but just because someone does something you do not like, does not mean they are bullying you. There has to be a way that you can identify those circumstances that rise above and beyond "normal" human interaction...which includes people who are inconsiderate, mean jerks...and become criminal activity which should involve criminal penalty. Being mean or not caring about someone else's feelings should not be a crime. Repeatedly humiliating or intimidating someone should be (MHO). But as long as "meanness" is included in the concept of "bullying" I do not see how we can make this a criminal offense. ANd unless it becomes criminal with criminal penalties, I don't see how we will ever be able to stop it.

See, I disagree with this. The fact that there are some kids who do not want to sit with my daughter at lunch, does not make them bullies. They do not go out of their way to be mean about it. They have just made it clear they don't want her at their table. Everyone does not have to be friends with everyone, and people should be able to choose who they spend their time with. Does it hurt her feelings? Yes. Or at least it used to. Now she understands that you like some people and you don't like some people and that is OK and that everyone should get to spend their time with people they like. If someone doesn't like you, you leave it alone and find someone who does. I object very strongly that someone indicated to my daughter that she was a victim of bullying because she was not welcome at a particular table. She is NOT a victim, and I don't want her to see herself as one. It's part of life.



I basically agree with this definition (I'd take out the words offensive and insulting) and in this case, I think "exclusion" refers not to the simple act of failing to include someone, but the kind of exclusion we talked about earlier, where the point of the exclusion is to humiliate. Because all of the examples must fall under the rubric "through means intended to undermine, humiliate, denigrate or injure the recipient."

The bottom line is, a universally embraced definition will probably never exist. But I don't think there is enough discussion about what it really is (like we are doing here) and I don't think the consequences are high enough (why I think it needs to be criminal, probably not with little kids, but with anyone high school and above).

I did my undergraduate and graduate research on perceptions of sexual harassment. Focused on more ambiguous acts. Interestingly, one of the predictors of how someone would rate an ambiguous act had nothing to do with the perpetrator, the victim, or the actual act itself. What predicted the response was whether or not the "rater" --uninvolved in the incident, but judging it--had a high or low preference for consistency.

It's complicated. But it warrants the energy to parcel it out because bullying is a potentially life-altering event. And in some cases ends up being a life-ending event. I think we all agree on that.

I don't think the definition is intended to put it in the recipient's end either - it is supposed to offer a rubric for the outside observer. Imagine writing an e-mail to describe a bullying action from a school principal explaining a bully/victim situation to the school district superintendent - you have to have a way to make a factual statement. You cannot include the bully's intent to humiliate nor can you include the mental state of the victim because those may be known only to them - and they are both unlikely to be truthful if asked. You have to have an outline of observable things that happened.

This problem is often handled by defining bullying by a specific set of behaviors, but in that case is that often those behaviors are not bullying (think of the kid who hits back against aggressors but is the one caught) or that behaviors that are bullying (like taunting someone about a party invitation) are ignored.

I don't think the definition of bullying is black and white because every situation is different. Ignoring someone can be bullying but it's not always bullying because it depends on the situation. If someone is bugging you and trying to annoy you so you ignore them, not bullying. If there is someone you don't like do you don't talk to them or look at them because you two don't get along, not bullying. I have read at work ignoring someone and giving them the silent treatment is a forum of workplace bullying but I disagree because it's not always the case. When someone upsets me deeply and hurts me, I tend to ignore them and not want to speak to them nor look at them, am I bullying them?

People say teasing is bullying but not all teasing is because what if someone did a playful tease? Are they bullying?

I think even NTs take the definition too literal because when you read the definition, you can apply it to every situation. Someone decides to rant about a person they can't stand, another person who over hears it may think it's bullying because they think that definition of bullying falls under it. By their logic someone else is bullying when they go home and talk to their husband about what happened at work regarding another co worker or someone goes to their therapist and talks about their issues and problems they have with people.

Some people even think silly websites like STFU patents or People of Walmart, or websites about dumb 911 calls and youtube videos about it or the Not Always right website or Too Big For a Stroller (now defunct) is bullying. Some even think making TV shows such as Worldest Dumbest Criminals is bullying. Some guy from Canada told me in PM on another forum is he appalled at what our country does because of that TV show.

If someone were to say bullying is where you make someone feel bad. Okay that can apply to anything if you take it literal. Like what if someone posts something online and you give them your honest feedback and they didn't agree with you so it makes them feel bad, did you bully them? You did under their literal definition. Someone makes a post on here and another person replies to it disagreeing with their opinion by posting their own point of view about it, some members on here have called this bullying.


So I don't think there is any absolute definition of the word because it's not black and white because every situation is different. It depends on the intent, and what the situation is.

I think if you interpret it very concretely, no, it doesn't rest on the recipient's end...exactly.

But when you think of it in the practical terms of actually using it, the "unwanted" part will inevitably have to include some degree of the recipient's perception of the experience. Because "I didn't want them to do that" should never be grounds for determining someone is a bully. There is always going to have to be a description of "why," ykwim? And this is why I think there needs to be a determination regarding which kinds of "why" constitute bullying. I felt humiliated? Yes. I felt frightened? Yes. I felt intimidated? Yes. I felt angry because I don't think they should have done that? No. I felt annoyed? No. I thought it was mean? No. I felt like I wanted to get them in trouble? No.

"Unwanted" is not descriptive enough in and of itself. I feel like there should be some kind of...qualifier. Because as someone who WAS bullied, it wasn't a matter of feeling angry, annoyed, irritated, or bothered. It wasn't even a matter of having my feelings hurt. It was a matter of feeling deeply humiliated. I will be honest and sometimes the things that others describe as being "bullied" (wasn't invited to a birthday party or someone said my clothes aren't cool, etc) drudge up a whole lot of feelings in me. I wish my problem as a kid was not getting invited to a birthday party or being told my clothes weren't cool (both of which happened, btw). I didn't need adults to protect me from that. That is life. People are mean. You have to learn to deal with it. But being regularly spat upon in front of my peers, sometimes with snot drudged up from their sinuses included in the spit? The kid who gets locked out of the locker room in the nude? The kid who is beaten? The kid who has malicious rumors spread around the school? The kid who is not welcome at ANY lunchroom table because the bully ensures that everyone is afraid to allow the kid to sit there? That is not a normal part of human existence and it is not just someone being mean. It is someone being malicious. It is behavior that forges into the pathological. No one should have to learn to deal with it because no one should be allowed to do it. Not because it is "mean," but because it goes way beyond that.

And then there is the issue of labeling people, sometimes little kids. Do I think that every one of the kids that ever did anything mean to me, even if it was done repeatedly, are bad people who should carry around a label of "bully" or face criminal penalties because of what they did? No. Some of them were jerks and are probably still jerks to this day. I bet they continue to p!ss people off on a regular basis, and I doubt they even care. Some of them made poor choices, possibly to avoid being targets themselves. I have "met" some of them as adults and they seem to have grown up to be regularly functioning human beings who seem to be pretty decent people. But the ones who bullied me? I am quite sure that they continue to claim victims to this day. Because honestly, now that I am older, I see that they have a pathological need to inflict pain on others and dominate whatever social sphere they are a part of. Unlike the person who is simply a jerk, these people are predators. And that predatory inclination makes them different from the plain jerks.

I may be perseverating here. I know I already made the disclaimer that I sometimes get passionate about this subject. I will acknowledge that right now I cannot tell if we are continuing to have a useful dialogue, or if I have just started monologuing and talking over others. If I am, I apologize and I don't mean to be doing it.

In my daughter's case, the same set of girls spent years peeling away all of her friends--warning them not to sit with the "weird" kid, not to go to her birthday parties, purposely making her friends part of their posse, so that she would be alone. I would call that bullying for sure.

Oh. Me, too. For sure.

Sorry to derail this thread a bit but I don't understand what I did to offend Nessa. It does have some relevance. She called me a bully. What did I do wrong? I was trying to simply understand her situation. It did not make any sense to me at first.

These are my questions.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp5387117.html#5387117

These are her responses.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postxf230628-0-30.html

These are my responses back.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp5395550.html#5395550

Why am I being seen as a bully? I'm confused and don't get it.

I will have to agree with OliveOilMom with her original question. How can we stop bullying if we all have different definitions of what bullying is? We need objective criteria that we can all or a lot of us can agree upon. I believe George Orwell asked the same question concerning Fascism? How can we stop Fascism if we do not know what Fascism is? I believe he asked as well "how can one fight for freedom if one can't define freedom?" To put a definition on terms like freedom seems to be resisted by all sides. It seems like this is occurring for bullying as well.

cubedemon:

I do not think you were a bully. I think the issue was that the subject was very emotionally upsetting to her. Now, of course, she might have chosen to not post on such a potentially sensitive (for her) subject in PPR. When she said it was a "triggering" topic, it might have been better not to ask pointed questions about her dismissal. It was not wrong for you to do so, as, again, she chose to post her story on there in response to the topic. I think by telling everyone it was"triggering" she meant it (imprecise language) to mean that everyone should infer that she wanted to drop the subject unless the responses were 100% supportive with her perspective. She did not desire analysis..

That was not realistic to expect aspies on PPR to understand that. For whatever reason she was not able to be as direct as she needed to be. I would put that in the communications failure box.

It was clear to me that you were just trying to clarify the story and understand what happened. I think she internalized it and took it to mean her story was being doubted and minimized, and had no interest in hashing it out with a different perspective.

I don't think you did anything wrong. Some people don't like to be questioned because they feel you are doubting them or judging them. It may have been a sensitive topic for her.

It's like if I were to ask a parent why her kid is still in diapers, the mother may get defensive and be unfriendly with her response when I was just curious. In the mother's view, she may have thought I was one of those people who think kids should be out of diapers at a certain age and if they are not, the parent is lazy. Potty training is a sensitive topic for most parents so they always go in defense mode if someone questions why their kid is isn't potty trained. They lump you into one of those people who judge. Some people ask questions to judge you and they are not intending to hear an answer.