The wussifying of America

[ivona 0]

I remember as a kid seeing both sides in a fight between bullies and victims being treated the same (suspending both, etc.), and felt that the adults were much more interested in peace than in justice.

Ok, first to comment on the bolded part... On a playground, let's say you have only 50 kids (I say only cause you usually have closer to 100). When a fight starts, it started between two people BUT- if you do not do something in matter of second and by something I mean separate them any way you can- you will have five kids in a fight where there used to be only two in just a minute.

I don't know how to ilustrate this if you have never witnessed it, as an adult, but when something like this happens it is like the energy changes and all of them turn into bewildered animals, everyone wants to throw in a punch.

So yeah, as an adult in charge of those kids you are more interested in peace just because if you don't achieve it you will have a rampage on the playground that you will NOT be able to control.

Now, if you're lucky you will manage to break the kids apart- take the fighters somewhere out of sight, usually the office and hope that the rest of the kids aren't rallied up enough and that they will just disperse.

Only at that point can you start even thinking about "justice" which is usually in the eyes of the beholder...

So you have a kid who started a fight, someone has to throw the first punch but there also has to be more than one person in order for the fight to persist...so we can discuss who is more or less to blame but to say the blame is only on one person is untrue....

Lucky, don't be condesending- it doesn't suit you

[Scott & Lai 12]

Only at that point can you start even thinking about "justice" which is usually in the eyes of the beholder...

So you have a kid who started a fight, someone has to throw the first punch but there also has to be more than one person in order for the fight to persist...so we can discuss who is more or less to blame but to say the blame is only on one person is untrue....

So, if a kid is bullied and he fights back to defend himself, then he also bears some of the blame? I'm sorry, that is simply unjust.

And you didn't answer this question:

Is the reason that kids are are bullied that they haven't "learned to play together," or that it is the nature of bullies to prey on the weak?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So you have a kid who started a fight, someone has to throw the first punch but there also has to be more than one person in order for the fight to persist...so we can discuss who is more or less to blame but to say the blame is only on one person is untrue....

So, if a kid is bullied and he fights back to defend himself, then he also bears some of the blame? I'm sorry, that is simply unjust.

I think you missed her point that fights don't take place in some hermetic social vaccuum - but in the midst of a large chaotic group of children. The teacher isn't omniscient, can't be everywhere at once and if you see a fight taking place your responsibility (which is to all of the children in your charge) is to break it up.

One of the functions of schools is to teach appropriate social behaviour. Violence does not fit within that definition - and before we get on to "Aha Wussification" - lets not forget that young children do not behave like adults, because they are of course not adults and are usually subject to different (stricter) rules different concerning things like violence.

And you didn't answer this question:

Is the reason that kids are are bullied that they haven't "learned to play together," or that it is the nature of bullies to prey on the weak?

You forgot - parental neglect and abuse and the fact that a lot of bullies were themselves "the bullied" at one time or another. Lets not pretend its a clear cut issue here...

[Scott & Lai 12]

So you have a kid who started a fight, someone has to throw the first punch but there also has to be more than one person in order for the fight to persist...so we can discuss who is more or less to blame but to say the blame is only on one person is untrue....

So, if a kid is bullied and he fights back to defend himself, then he also bears some of the blame? I'm sorry, that is simply unjust.

I think you missed her point that fights don't take place in some hermetic social vaccuum - but in the midst of a large chaotic group of children. The teacher isn't omniscient, can't be everywhere at once and if you see a fight taking place your responsibility (which is to all of the children in your charge) is to break it up.

One of the functions of schools is to teach appropriate social behaviour. Violence does not fit within that definition - and before we get on to "Aha Wussification" - lets not forget that young children do not behave like adults, because they are of course not adults and are usually subject to different (stricter) rules different concerning things like violence.

And you didn't answer this question:

Is the reason that kids are are bullied that they haven't "learned to play together," or that it is the nature of bullies to prey on the weak?

You forgot - parental neglect and abuse and the fact that a lot of bullies were themselves "the bullied" at one time or another. Lets not pretend its a clear cut issue here...

Suggesting that kids get bullied because they haven't "learned to play together," and making someone who defends himself against a bully bear some of the blame for the fight is blaming the victim. I experienced plenty of bullying as a child, and even to some extent into high school, so I know what it is like to be an innocent victim. The only thing I did to antagonize bullies was mind my own business. I asked one of the creatures in jr high why he was bothering me; his response: "Because you exist." I was simply an easy target. I'm sure if everyone who tried bullying me got a black eye and agonizing groin pain on their first attempt, they'd have moved on to a less dangerous mark.

[DeadPoolX 9]

I don't think any teacher/playground assistant wants to spend their time adjudicating playground violence. Bullying is not tolerated and children are taught that standing up to bullies by exposing their controlling behaviour to an adult who can properly deal with the situation is the right way to go. It takes at least as much courage to go down this route as to hit back. Teachers need to know who the bullies are, they don't need the playground to become a big game of survival of the fittest. I am really quite suprised that anyone thinks this makes some kind of sense.

You've obviously never been physically bullied as a child.

I was, and quite heavily all through my school years until college. The abuse went far beyond verbal; I'm talking about all sorts of physical assaults. Going to a teacher was worthless. They either didn't want anything to do with the situation (i.e. "It's not my problem") or they claimed they couldn't do anything without actually seeing the abuse happen itself. Whoever said that going to a teacher only made the problem worse was right -- in many cases, just for "ratting" on them, the bullies would increase the level of their abuse.

Talking to the bullies does nothing. They don't give a good God damn about your feelings or whatever. All they want to do is get a kick out of tormenting you. Your discomfort is their pleasure.

So I told my father. His advice? "Punch the bully in the nose really hard. It'll bleed, and most people freak out when they see blood." I followed that advice and got into a number of fights on school grounds. Never got into trouble either, but let me tell you... after those fights, the bullies left me alone.

Sometimes the only thing a bully understands is violence, so you have to respond with violence. Once I "earned their respect" by standing up to and fighting them, my problems (for the most part) ceased. There were still isolated events, but nothing long-term like it was before.

So to all of those people who say that violence never solves anything? I say that's bullcrap. While I would've rathered the teachers do something or the bullies stop after I talked to them, that is not the real world. What is real is that some people (usually those intent on making your life miserable) only respond and listen to a good swift punch. Maybe that's a sad commentary on society, but it's true.

Fortunately, I haven't had to use violence to solve my problems as an adult. But as a child, it was sometimes the only avenue to take.

[slim 1,525]

Aha... wussification!

I remember as a kid seeing both sides in a fight between bullies and victims being treated the same (suspending both, etc.), and felt that the adults were much more interested in peace than in justice.

Ok, first to comment on the bolded part... On a playground, let's say you have only 50 kids (I say only cause you usually have closer to 100). When a fight starts, it started between two people BUT- if you do not do something in matter of second and by something I mean separate them any way you can- you will have five kids in a fight where there used to be only two in just a minute.

I don't know how to ilustrate this if you have never witnessed it, as an adult, but when something like this happens it is like the energy changes and all of them turn into bewildered animals, everyone wants to throw in a punch.

So yeah, as an adult in charge of those kids you are more interested in peace just because if you don't achieve it you will have a rampage on the playground that you will NOT be able to control.

Now, if you're lucky you will manage to break the kids apart- take the fighters somewhere out of sight, usually the office and hope that the rest of the kids aren't rallied up enough and that they will just disperse.

Only at that point can you start even thinking about "justice" which is usually in the eyes of the beholder...

So you have a kid who started a fight, someone has to throw the first punch but there also has to be more than one person in order for the fight to persist...so we can discuss who is more or less to blame but to say the blame is only on one person is untrue....

Lucky, don't be condesending- it doesn't suit you

So we're taught, as youngsters on a playground, all jumping in to a fight on one side or another, depending on our beliefs, that fighting is not allowed under any circumstances, and those who start the fights and even those who participate in them will be punished.

How often do teachers take those "who started it" in front of the class and have them explain why they were fighting? And those that jumped in, do they get to state their case as to why they joined either side? Then there's a debate following as to why little Johnny and little Bobby were fighting, and why little Jimmy jumped in on Johnny's side and little Brian jumped in on Bobby's side. Then... there's instruction by the teacher as to #1: how, and if this could've been settled peacefully, #2: on how this relates to "real life", and #3: on why this is not acceptable behavior.

That doesn't happen..... And it should!

We're not told from an early age that violence is wrong because it's not an acceptable human behavior in modern society under "normal" conditions. We're told that violence is wrong, PERIOD. It's just wrong. Under any and all circumstances, violence is wrong. That needs to change.

And to those out there that say; since I don't have any kids, I'm not worthy of chiming in on child-rearing, I would like to raise these points. Not all kids grow up to be "model citizens", does that mean having a kid qualifies every parent as an "expert" on child-rearing?

I've made the conscious choice to not have children yet because it's not acceptable to me to raise my kids in the current state (state of affairs, not Ohio) that I live in. Several young people such as myself didn't make that choice, and they've had plenty of kids (like my little sister). I look at them, and I see the lack of children on my side does not disqualify me one bit from putting my two cents in on kid related topics. I believe that having children should disqualify some of them from voicing their oppinions, because they're horrible parents. Their kids aren't going to turn out much better, and the more of them that do that, the farther and farther our society is going to get flushed down the toilet. There's no "qualification test" to become a parent. You're not "certified" to become one either. The fact that you're old enough to reproduce is simply the prerequisite. See the thread on the 9-year-old pregnancy. Should she be voicing her oppinion on kids before me?

Oh, and I had parents, so that kind of gives me an insight into how that whole "deal" works. As a matter of fact, I had four parents, so you could argue that I have twice as much insight, and therefore, twice as much "inside knowledge" as to how parenting works or doesn't. (You could also argue that I have half.... go ahead, you're arguing everything else that makes sense!)

Kids today, and what is taught to them as socially acceptable behavior will shape the society of the future. To say that someone who is not a parent has no right (or at least, no insight) to voice their oppinion on the direction it should go in is to say those who are not politicians should not voice oppinions about politics. You're not a politician, why do you care if Bush grants blanket amnesty to all illegal aliens? Why, because it will affect our society. Your argument is equivalent to saying you shouldn't have a view on the prison system because you're not a prisoner or a guard. The criminal justice system affects our society, doesn't it?

A lack of my own kids does not disqualify me from having an oppinion on what should be socially acceptable in how they are reared.

To return to OP, we have the natural ability to "choose sides" and take action for what we think is right. Being taught that violence is wrong instead of being taught when it is acceptable is what contributes to "victimization."

Pedroh pointed out that in countries such as Mexico, there is a fundamental difference in mentality when it comes to violent attacks on a group by a lone or significantly outnumbered "aggressor." They positively reenforce when someone attempts a crime on a group and the group takes violent counter-action. Here in the U.S., we'd have a lawsuit by the family of the "lynched" criminal against everyone on board that bus, even those that "stood by and took no action to stop the mob from beating their heavily outnumbered brother to death." In Mexico they'd say "no lawsuits for that pendejo who tried to jack a bus full of people with a knife."

In a related matter, a couple of months ago, two gunmen boarded a tour bus in Columbia attempting to rob the elderly international passengers. One of them was killed, and the other fled because one man on the bus jumped up, grabbed the gunman, and strangled him to death. The man? An 82-year-old American on holiday with his wife. Did the Columbians press charges? Hell NO! They were happy this man took action against a criminal. Had that man done that in the U.S., do you think he'd be on the news telling his story? Hell no, he'd be locked up for 2nd degree manslaughter.

That's what needs to change.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So we're taught, as youngsters on a playground, all jumping in to a fight on one side or another, depending on our beliefs, that fighting is not allowed under any circumstances, and those who start the fights and even those who participate in them will be punished.

How often do teachers take those "who started it" in front of the class and have them explain why they were fighting? And those that jumped in, do they get to state their case as to why they joined either side? Then there's a debate following as to why little Johnny and little Bobby were fighting, and why little Jimmy jumped in on Johnny's side and little Brian jumped in on Bobby's side. Then... there's instruction by the teacher as to #1: how, and if this could've been settled peacefully, #2: on how this relates to "real life", and #3: on why this is not acceptable behavior.

That doesn't happen..... And it should!

Ummm... perhaps because kids lie. Perhaps because as a busy teacher you don't have time to get to the end of every dispute that you didn't see and have a dozen chattering munchkins at your feet all with a different story. Are we now getting on to inadequate teaching now? I guess you have an opinion on that too...

We're not told from an early age that violence is wrong because it's not an acceptable human behavior in modern society under "normal" conditions. We're told that violence is wrong, PERIOD. It's just wrong. Under any and all circumstances, violence is wrong. That needs to change.

Again... How?

And to those out there that say; since I don't have any kids, I'm not worthy of chiming in on child-rearing, I would like to raise these points. Not all kids grow up to be "model citizens", does that mean having a kid qualifies every parent as an "expert" on child-rearing?

I've made the conscious choice to not have children yet because it's not acceptable to me to raise my kids in the current state (state of affairs, not Ohio) that I live in. Several young people such as myself didn't make that choice, and they've had plenty of kids (like my little sister). I look at them, and I see the lack of children on my side does not disqualify me one bit from putting my two cents in on kid related topics. I believe that having children should disqualify some of them from voicing their oppinions, because they're horrible parents. Their kids aren't going to turn out much better, and the more of them that do that, the farther and farther our society is going to get flushed down the toilet. There's no "qualification test" to become a parent. You're not "certified" to become one either. The fact that you're old enough to reproduce is simply the prerequisite. See the thread on the 9-year-old pregnancy. Should she be voicing her oppinion on kids before me?

Oh, and I had parents, so that kind of gives me an insight into how that whole "deal" works. As a matter of fact, I had four parents, so you could argue that I have twice as much insight, and therefore, twice as much "inside knowledge" as to how parenting works or doesn't. (You could also argue that I have half.... go ahead, you're arguing everything else that makes sense!)

Kids today, and what is taught to them as socially acceptable behavior will shape the society of the future. To say that someone who is not a parent has no right (or at least, no insight) to voice their oppinion on the direction it should go in is to say those who are not politicians should not voice oppinions about politics. You're not a politician, why do you care if Bush grants blanket amnesty to all illegal aliens? Why, because it will affect our society. Your argument is equivalent to saying you shouldn't have a view on the prison system because you're not a prisoner or a guard. The criminal justice system affects our society, doesn't it?

A lack of my own kids does not disqualify me from having an oppinion on what should be socially acceptable in how they are reared.

What I would say to you is there's a world of difference between how you would conceptualise how you would theoretically raise your child and the reality of actually doing it. Everyone seems to have some genius idea about how best to raise a kid better than anyone else - but they don't come with manuals, and I for one wouldn't be so arrogant as to suggest I know better than anyone else (parents especially) how best to raise a child. Most parents, I suspect, do the best they can for their kids.

To return to OP, we have the natural ability to "choose sides" and take action for what we think is right. Being taught that violence is wrong instead of being taught when it is acceptable is what contributes to "victimization."

Pedroh pointed out that in countries such as Mexico, there is a fundamental difference in mentality when it comes to violent attacks on a group by a lone or significantly outnumbered "aggressor." They positively reenforce when someone attempts a crime on a group and the group takes violent counter-action. Here in the U.S., we'd have a lawsuit by the family of the "lynched" criminal against everyone on board that bus, even those that "stood by and took no action to stop the mob from beating their heavily outnumbered brother to death." In Mexico they'd say "no lawsuits for that pendejo who tried to jack a bus full of people with a knife."

In a related matter, a couple of months ago, two gunmen boarded a tour bus in Columbia attempting to rob the elderly international passengers. One of them was killed, and the other fled because one man on the bus jumped up, grabbed the gunman, and strangled him to death. The man? An 82-year-old American on holiday with his wife. Did the Columbians press charges? Hell NO! They were happy this man took action against a criminal. Had that man done that in the U.S., do you think he'd be on the news telling his story? Hell no, he'd be locked up for 2nd degree manslaughter.

That's what needs to change.

Hmmm while those countries you mentioned - Mexico and Colombia may have differing attitudes to violence they still have significant problems with crime (and especially violent crime), easily comparable with and in several cases worse than the US.

Mate - this whole line of argument is pretty lame IMO - because at the center of it is STILL the tragedy from last week. As I said, whether you choose to recognise it or not the implications in your arguments are very clear.

I doubt very much that you can say with any degree of certainty that you know much of anything at all about the backgrounds of the people who died at VA Tech, Columbine or indeed who were in the hijacked planes on 9/11. Moreover, I suspect you know nothing about how those people were brought up and indeed nothing about how they reacted to those events and other violent events in their past.

Aside from the whole "armchair quarterback" speculation thing you are doing here, it seems you're now implying that those people were effectively doomed from birth by inadequate parenting and attitudes towards violence.

Everyone seems to have theory about "whats wrong with society" and how to "fix it". Its just unfortunate that so many only have one idea. Usually very bad one.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Suggesting that kids get bullied because they haven't "learned to play together," and making someone who defends himself against a bully bear some of the blame for the fight is blaming the victim. I experienced plenty of bullying as a child, and even to some extent into high school, so I know what it is like to be an innocent victim. The only thing I did to antagonize bullies was mind my own business. I asked one of the creatures in jr high why he was bothering me; his response: "Because you exist." I was simply an easy target. I'm sure if everyone who tried bullying me got a black eye and agonizing groin pain on their first attempt, they'd have moved on to a less dangerous mark.

You know there seems to be something of an irony here considering that you said a few posts earlier that I should:

...stand up and offer yourself as a target and bring your end as quickly as possible, since you've apparently given up on survival.

Out of curiosity - why didn't you fight back?

I mean if we're talking personal responsibility here - then shouldn't you have defended yourself. I mean, if you're not going to do it... who will?

I got bullied too. I fought back. More to the point, I didn't need anyone to tell me to do it. But I wasn't about to get kicked out of school over it.

Moreover, I wonder if you can see the difference between (for example) your dad telling you to "hit the bully on the nose", and actually standing in front of the guy and doing it.

"Telling" is not conditioning. So really I'm still at a loss here exactly how a person "conditions" a child to deal with violence without actually subjecting them to it.

[ivona 0]

Sorry for being out so long, there has definatelly been a lot of responses...

So much, in fact, that I won't be addressing each one indivdually...

Erekose was right when he pointed out that the playground situation I was describing was with the purpose to illustrate that things never happen in a vaccum, and that it is very different to deal just with your own two children or with several tens of them at a school type of environment....

Justice has nothing to do with it, maintaining peace has everything to do with it. and you missed the point where I said that only after the kids are removed from the rest of the populus will the actual incident be addressed...

And unless you have a crystal ball, or unless you were lucky enough to be right there when it started (you can hardly be that lucky normally) you CANNOT know who did what first.... and I'm sorry but to say: "Ok, kid you weren't the one who started so you're off the hook" is, to me, just as unjust. Mind you, I never said that the consequences will be equal for both kids involved.

The defendee might get a day of ISS, while the starter gets 3day suspension for example...

Only a month ago we had a situation where a kid who is usually on the starting end of trouble has gotten beaten up by several other kids.Are you actually telling me that it's okay to say to this kid or his parents: "Yes maam, I'm very sorry your kid got beat up but he has been bullying some other kids for a month now so we feel he got what he deserves and therefore we will not do a darn thing for him."

That's crazy...

I see a lot of people in this thread using black and white arguments, when the truth is that it is NEVER black and white and EVERY situation is unique.

And Slim, you watching other peoples kids and their parents doesn't mean you know what its like to be with a child 24 hours every day, every month, every year. Having a theory on how you could do things better is all nice and dandy, but the truth of the matter is that until you have a kid of your own you will not have the experience of raising a child, nor the knowledge of how hard it can sometimes be to make the "right" decision.

It is dissapointing that even after 20- something pages of this thread you continue to clammer same old "we should change", and have not yet provided and answer as to HOW we should do that....

To the poster who sad his/her dad said s/he should punch the bully or something, if my kid came to me with that- next morning I would be in the principals office demanding that the so and so be dealt with appropriatelly.

Bullies bully, in my opinion, because they need to feel in control in at least one area of their lives. The bullying stops when the control is taken away from them; violence however is not the only way to remove that control.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

And to those out there that say; since I don't have any kids, I'm not worthy of chiming in on child-rearing, I would like to raise these points. Not all kids grow up to be "model citizens", does that mean having a kid qualifies every parent as an "expert" on child-rearing?

good point - i'll have to remember that when the very same ones start in on guns....which as they don't own any, their viewpoint is invalid

[Heracles 417]

You forgot - parental neglect and abuse and the fact that a lot of bullies were themselves "the bullied" at one time or another. Lets not pretend its a clear cut issue here...

You also have a growing number of kids who get away with anything no matter what they do since in their stupid parent's eyes they do no wrong.

I remember seeing a movie based on a true story where a school jock beat a kid up so much they he had to learn to walk again. His mom a wealthy real estate agent basically backed her son. No matter what the victims father did the bully's mother hired hot shot lawyers who got him off. The school was not even able to expel him because she threatened to sue.

Such cases are not isolated.. Numerous teachers I know regularly tell me of cases where the bully's parents basically accuse the school of picking on 'their' child or even lying about their child. While the child returns the next day with a big grin on their face as they have beat the system once again..

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

And to those out there that say; since I don't have any kids, I'm not worthy of chiming in on child-rearing, I would like to raise these points. Not all kids grow up to be "model citizens", does that mean having a kid qualifies every parent as an "expert" on child-rearing?

good point - i'll have to remember that when the very same ones start in on guns....which as they don't own any, their viewpoint is invalid

Seung-Hui Cho had a point of view and he expressed it 170 times...

[William33 110]

And to those out there that say; since I don't have any kids, I'm not worthy of chiming in on child-rearing, I would like to raise these points. Not all kids grow up to be "model citizens", does that mean having a kid qualifies every parent as an "expert" on child-rearing?

good point - i'll have to remember that when the very same ones start in on guns....which as they don't own any, their viewpoint is invalid

Seung-Hui Cho had a point of view and he expressed it 170 times...

Can an insane individual offer a legitimate point of view? Or simply irrational action?

I submit that he did not offer a point of view, rather an insane act, without rational thought.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

And to those out there that say; since I don't have any kids, I'm not worthy of chiming in on child-rearing, I would like to raise these points. Not all kids grow up to be "model citizens", does that mean having a kid qualifies every parent as an "expert" on child-rearing?

good point - i'll have to remember that when the very same ones start in on guns....which as they don't own any, their viewpoint is invalid

Seung-Hui Cho had a point of view and he expressed it 170 times...

and you've exceeded him even though you don't own a gun

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

And to those out there that say; since I don't have any kids, I'm not worthy of chiming in on child-rearing, I would like to raise these points. Not all kids grow up to be "model citizens", does that mean having a kid qualifies every parent as an "expert" on child-rearing?

good point - i'll have to remember that when the very same ones start in on guns....which as they don't own any, their viewpoint is invalid

Seung-Hui Cho had a point of view and he expressed it 170 times...

and you've exceeded him even though you don't own a gun

I've not shot one person, let alone 32...