4 ms·

> You can have zero tolerance for bullying and harassment, without 100 surveillance You absolutely, positively, cannot have that. Bullying is an all day every

> You can have zero tolerance for bullying and harassment, without 100 surveillance You absolutely, positively, cannot have that. Bullying is an all day every day thing with children. Especially boys. The only way you prevent it all the time is to never leave boys alone in a group with no monitoring or supervision. Edit: If you are downvoting or disagreeing with this, you are part of the absurdly unreasonable expectations we have for our children. Especially boys. And are likely part of the reason 1 in 6 boys are diagnosed with ADHD for not meeting these insane ideals.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
bilbo0s 7y ago
>Bullying is an all day every day thing with children. Especially boys... I don't think you've ever been responsible for a group of adolescent girls. Far better than boys, at pretty much every aspect of bullying.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  >I don't think you've ever been responsible for a group of adolescent girls. Far better than boys, at pretty much every aspect of bullying. If your definition of bullying is mostly physical (which is a crappy definition but I digress) boys are way worse.
jdietrich 7y ago
>Bullying is an all day every day thing with children. Kids tease each other, they call each other names, they occasionally get into fist-fights, but that's not necessarily bullying. Bullying is systematic and targeted harassment; it is entirely right and proper that we should not tolerate it. If a kid is a bully, he's an asshole. He shouldn't necessarily be expelled or even necessarily suspended, but someone needs to make it crystal clear to him that his behaviour is unacceptable and will not be tolerated, otherwise he'll grow up to be an asshole and raise his kids to be assholes. Don't drag ADHD or insane ideals into this and don't suggest it's some sort of modern mollycoddling. Internet surveillance and helicopter parenting is no substitute for moral leadership and the teaching of values. The idea that kids need constant monitoring is symptomatic of a profound societal cowardice, an abnegation of responsibility for teaching children to be decent human beings. The solution to bullying isn't constant surveillance of children, it's teaching children how to stand up for themselves and instilling them with a sense of duty to stand up for their peers. It's creating a school community in which bullying isn't something to be swept under the carpet, but something to be fought vigorously. It's leading by example, taking the time to listen to children and treating them with the same respect that you expect them to show others. That's not easy, but it's our duty.
- GrinningFool 7y ago
  > but someone needs to make it crystal clear to him that his behaviour is unacceptable and will not be tolerate We've been working with the school following 'proper channels' for some ongoing incidents, and it hasn't been effective even though the school acknowledges the problem and that it is with the other kid involved. All this focus on bullying is great - but it feels a lot like lip service. They spend huge amounts of time talking about how bullying is not acceptable - but little preventing it from occurring. If it's not acceptable, the school needs to treat it that way. If they're not (and honestly, I don't think they can - they have limited people, and their primary goal is teaching), then it's up to the students to make clear to their peers that the behavior is not acceptable. > The solution to bullying isn't constant surveillance of > children, it's teaching children how to stand up for themselves > and instilling them with the sense of duty to stand up for their peers We recently told our son that he's welcome to hit back when someone starts bullying him physically - he may get in trouble at school, but we'll support him at home. When 'proper channels' don't work, there's not a lot of options remaining.
  - jdietrich 7y ago
    >We've been working with the school following 'proper channels' for some ongoing incidents, and it hasn't been effective even though the school acknowledges the problem and that it is with the other kid involved. All this focus on bullying is great - but it feels a lot like lip service. Claiming that you don't tolerate bullying is very different to making it clear to the bully that you don't tolerate bullying. A lot of "zero tolerance" policies are really zero tolerance for the appearance of a bullying problem - we'll do literally anything to cover it up, including forcing the victim out of school, but we don't really care whether it's happening. > We recently told our son that he's welcome to hit back when someone starts bullying him physically - he may get in trouble at school, but we'll support him at home. When 'proper channels' don't work, there's not a lot of options remaining. Fair and reasonable. A lot of school administrators won't see it that way, but there's a valuable lesson to be had in the value of self-respect and the questionable integrity of many authority figures. >If they're not (and honestly, I don't think they can - they have limited people, and their primary goal is teaching) Anecdotally, I think it's a problem of willpower more than manpower. A lot of teachers (and particularly administrators) are far too willing to take the easy option. I was taught by many people who would go out of their way to intervene when they suspected bullying, but many who were all too willing to turn a blind eye if it earned them a quiet lesson or a quiet lunch break. Not all teachers are heroes and I don't expect them to be, but there's a fundamental issue of leadership and culture. If the principal cares more about standardised test results than the wellbeing of his students, that will poison the entire culture of the school.
thrower123 7y ago
Bullying seems to be such a massively larger problem these days, compared to when I was in grade school a couple decades ago. Or at least people are hyper-aware of it. I suppose part of it is that it's not really acceptable to turn around and punch somebody in the mouth if they are being an obnoxious shit anymore. If it is just allowed to slide, the harassment escalates over time, especially in an environment like a school where you can't escape forced association. There's much to be said for short, sharp, action to set boundaries.
- spaginal 7y ago
  I think zero tolerance on both parties plays a large part into this. I was mercilessly bullied in elementary school until I attacked my bully at recess in 6th grade. I’m almost 40 now and it still stands out as a pivotal moment in my growth into an adult. That one action stopped the behavior for good and I wasn’t severely punished for it. It also settled down the kid who bullied me. I know now that schools can punish victims as severely as the bully, and I think it exacerbates the problem instead of fixing it. The bullies incentives don’t change, but the victim of it has substantially more to fear. Not only from the bully, but the institution itself if they fight back or get goaded into the confrontation. Frankly, let the children fight it out and allow an environment to develop where children don’t tolerate the behavior and work on conflict resolution themselves. Overt surveillance by adults isn’t a fix for it, nor is allowing it to develop to a point where a kid brings a gun to school to fix it themselves. We’ve lost healthy conflict resolution in this country, and yes, physical fighting can be a healthy outlet to solve it.
  - dmitrygr 7y ago
    Parents can probably help here. School is unlikely to punish the bullied for self-defense if a parent threatens a VERY PUBLIC VERY EXPENSIVE LAWSUIT for his kid being punished for self-defense. Actual lawsuit not needed, the treat will likely be enough. If our legal system provides for self-defense, schools should fall in line. Yes, I know that enforcing this and finding out who hit whom first is hard, well, nobody said law (or rule) enforcement is easy!
kevin_b_er 7y ago
This is a highly sexist view. Girls are just as merciless, often moreso, but will often stick more to psychological abuse. You can ignore this bullying all you want, but it is the new tactic for a few decades now. The bully doesn't have to touch their target. They just need to psychologically abuse them until they get a physical reaction out of their target. Then zero tolerance comes in and the target is punished. The bully gets off free and the message is pounded home: You are not allowed to question or react to the bullies cruelty. That is the consequence of their "zero tolerance" and of your sexist viewpoint toward the bullying requiring physical acts. It is a zero tolerance for victims alone and high tolerance for psychological abuse that is favored by girls.
- 0815test 7y ago
  You can teach your kid to resist psychological abuse. Physical abuse is more challenging - often the only real option is to push back in self-defense, which can be quite problematic.
  - Avamander 7y ago
    Resisting mental violence doesn't work. It seeps trough defenses. Kind-of like "Don't think about a Pink Elephant".
    - 0815test 7y ago
      > Resisting mental violence doesn't work. It seeps trough defenses. What? It absolutely does, especially compared to the alternative of not doing it. Your kid must simply internalize the fact that they're trying to get a reaction out of him/her, and that's the only motive behind what they're saying. Oh, and that people who act like that are very unlikely to ever be friendly to you; and in particular, trying to cater to them or to appeal to their humaneness is the worst approach one could take. These things are not obvious to the average kid; they absolutely need to be taught.
      - Avamander 7y ago
JoeAltmaier 7y ago
Again with the dichotomies. Understand that in one microcosm (school) it may have been like that. But in others it might have worked differently. So from one viewpoint, that's the 'only way' things can work. In my experience, it can work differently. I had 3 boys in public school.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

bilbo0s 7y ago

>Bullying is an all day every day thing with children. Especially boys... I don't think you've ever been responsible for a group of adolescent girls. Far better than boys, at pretty much every aspect of bullying.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
>I don't think you've ever been responsible for a group of adolescent girls. Far better than boys, at pretty much every aspect of bullying. If your definition of bullying is mostly physical (which is a crappy definition but I digress) boys are way worse.

jdietrich 7y ago

>Bullying is an all day every day thing with children. Kids tease each other, they call each other names, they occasionally get into fist-fights, but that's not necessarily bullying. Bullying is systematic and targeted harassment; it is entirely right and proper that we should not tolerate it. If a kid is a bully, he's an asshole. He shouldn't necessarily be expelled or even necessarily suspended, but someone needs to make it crystal clear to him that his behaviour is unacceptable and will not be tolerated, otherwise he'll grow up to be an asshole and raise his kids to be assholes. Don't drag ADHD or insane ideals into this and don't suggest it's some sort of modern mollycoddling. Internet surveillance and helicopter parenting is no substitute for moral leadership and the teaching of values. The idea that kids need constant monitoring is symptomatic of a profound societal cowardice, an abnegation of responsibility for teaching children to be decent human beings. The solution to bullying isn't constant surveillance of children, it's teaching children how to stand up for themselves and instilling them with a sense of duty to stand up for their peers. It's creating a school community in which bullying isn't something to be swept under the carpet, but something to be fought vigorously. It's leading by example, taking the time to listen to children and treating them with the same respect that you expect them to show others. That's not easy, but it's our duty.

GrinningFool 7y ago
> but someone needs to make it crystal clear to him that his behaviour is unacceptable and will not be tolerate We've been working with the school following 'proper channels' for some ongoing incidents, and it hasn't been effective even though the school acknowledges the problem and that it is with the other kid involved. All this focus on bullying is great - but it feels a lot like lip service. They spend huge amounts of time talking about how bullying is not acceptable - but little preventing it from occurring. If it's not acceptable, the school needs to treat it that way. If they're not (and honestly, I don't think they can - they have limited people, and their primary goal is teaching), then it's up to the students to make clear to their peers that the behavior is not acceptable. > The solution to bullying isn't constant surveillance of > children, it's teaching children how to stand up for themselves > and instilling them with the sense of duty to stand up for their peers We recently told our son that he's welcome to hit back when someone starts bullying him physically - he may get in trouble at school, but we'll support him at home. When 'proper channels' don't work, there's not a lot of options remaining.
- jdietrich 7y ago
  >We've been working with the school following 'proper channels' for some ongoing incidents, and it hasn't been effective even though the school acknowledges the problem and that it is with the other kid involved. All this focus on bullying is great - but it feels a lot like lip service. Claiming that you don't tolerate bullying is very different to making it clear to the bully that you don't tolerate bullying. A lot of "zero tolerance" policies are really zero tolerance for the appearance of a bullying problem - we'll do literally anything to cover it up, including forcing the victim out of school, but we don't really care whether it's happening. > We recently told our son that he's welcome to hit back when someone starts bullying him physically - he may get in trouble at school, but we'll support him at home. When 'proper channels' don't work, there's not a lot of options remaining. Fair and reasonable. A lot of school administrators won't see it that way, but there's a valuable lesson to be had in the value of self-respect and the questionable integrity of many authority figures. >If they're not (and honestly, I don't think they can - they have limited people, and their primary goal is teaching) Anecdotally, I think it's a problem of willpower more than manpower. A lot of teachers (and particularly administrators) are far too willing to take the easy option. I was taught by many people who would go out of their way to intervene when they suspected bullying, but many who were all too willing to turn a blind eye if it earned them a quiet lesson or a quiet lunch break. Not all teachers are heroes and I don't expect them to be, but there's a fundamental issue of leadership and culture. If the principal cares more about standardised test results than the wellbeing of his students, that will poison the entire culture of the school.

thrower123 7y ago

Bullying seems to be such a massively larger problem these days, compared to when I was in grade school a couple decades ago. Or at least people are hyper-aware of it. I suppose part of it is that it's not really acceptable to turn around and punch somebody in the mouth if they are being an obnoxious shit anymore. If it is just allowed to slide, the harassment escalates over time, especially in an environment like a school where you can't escape forced association. There's much to be said for short, sharp, action to set boundaries.

spaginal 7y ago
I think zero tolerance on both parties plays a large part into this. I was mercilessly bullied in elementary school until I attacked my bully at recess in 6th grade. I’m almost 40 now and it still stands out as a pivotal moment in my growth into an adult. That one action stopped the behavior for good and I wasn’t severely punished for it. It also settled down the kid who bullied me. I know now that schools can punish victims as severely as the bully, and I think it exacerbates the problem instead of fixing it. The bullies incentives don’t change, but the victim of it has substantially more to fear. Not only from the bully, but the institution itself if they fight back or get goaded into the confrontation. Frankly, let the children fight it out and allow an environment to develop where children don’t tolerate the behavior and work on conflict resolution themselves. Overt surveillance by adults isn’t a fix for it, nor is allowing it to develop to a point where a kid brings a gun to school to fix it themselves. We’ve lost healthy conflict resolution in this country, and yes, physical fighting can be a healthy outlet to solve it.
- dmitrygr 7y ago
  Parents can probably help here. School is unlikely to punish the bullied for self-defense if a parent threatens a VERY PUBLIC VERY EXPENSIVE LAWSUIT for his kid being punished for self-defense. Actual lawsuit not needed, the treat will likely be enough. If our legal system provides for self-defense, schools should fall in line. Yes, I know that enforcing this and finding out who hit whom first is hard, well, nobody said law (or rule) enforcement is easy!

kevin_b_er 7y ago

This is a highly sexist view. Girls are just as merciless, often moreso, but will often stick more to psychological abuse. You can ignore this bullying all you want, but it is the new tactic for a few decades now. The bully doesn't have to touch their target. They just need to psychologically abuse them until they get a physical reaction out of their target. Then zero tolerance comes in and the target is punished. The bully gets off free and the message is pounded home: You are not allowed to question or react to the bullies cruelty. That is the consequence of their "zero tolerance" and of your sexist viewpoint toward the bullying requiring physical acts. It is a zero tolerance for victims alone and high tolerance for psychological abuse that is favored by girls.

0815test 7y ago
You can teach your kid to resist psychological abuse. Physical abuse is more challenging - often the only real option is to push back in self-defense, which can be quite problematic.
- Avamander 7y ago
  Resisting mental violence doesn't work. It seeps trough defenses. Kind-of like "Don't think about a Pink Elephant".
  - 0815test 7y ago
    > Resisting mental violence doesn't work. It seeps trough defenses. What? It absolutely does, especially compared to the alternative of not doing it. Your kid must simply internalize the fact that they're trying to get a reaction out of him/her, and that's the only motive behind what they're saying. Oh, and that people who act like that are very unlikely to ever be friendly to you; and in particular, trying to cater to them or to appeal to their humaneness is the worst approach one could take. These things are not obvious to the average kid; they absolutely need to be taught.
    - Avamander 7y ago

JoeAltmaier 7y ago

Again with the dichotomies. Understand that in one microcosm (school) it may have been like that. But in others it might have worked differently. So from one viewpoint, that's the 'only way' things can work. In my experience, it can work differently. I had 3 boys in public school.