Let's teach girls to put up with violent boys

[Mister Rik]

My sister tells me that my redheaded niece, who is in kindergarten, got sent to the Principal's office again. For fighting! It seems that a boy at school smacked her in the face, and so she went upside his head (and must have made the boy cry, from the sound of it). She takes no shit. "Good for her!" I say. "Good for her!" my sister says.

But the Principal doesn't say that, nosirree Bob. No, the Principal (male or female, I don't know) explained to my niece and my sister that just because a boy hits her, she doesn't have the right to hit him back. That's right, a girl is not allowed to defend herself. As my sister put it (sarcastically, natch), "Sure, let's program these girls properly, so that when they're teenagers and adults and their boyfriends start slapping them around, they'll know to just put up with it!"

The Principal told my sister that if this kind of thing happens again, she'll have to suspend my niece from school. "Well," said my sister, "If that happens then I guess I'll just get to spend some quality time at home with my daughter."

Me? I say "Screw you, Principal". It's people like you who continue to enable bullies by making sure everybody else knows they're not supposed to stand up to them. Oh yeah, this is same Principal who busted my niece for bringing a "weapon" to school a couple weeks earlier. My niece found a piece of a broken hacksaw blade on the ground at her bus stop, and still had it in her hand when she got on the bus. Oh noes! She must be a little Scottish terrorist!

[Little Nemo]

Was the principal specifically telling her not to hit back because she was a girl or was it a general policy for all children? I agree that it's wrong to make gender-specific policies like that but I can see the principal's point if the rule is "no hitting other students - even if they hit you first."

[Mister Rik]

I'm not sure. I suppose it's not gender-specific. My sister was sure pissed, though. She's as "take no shit" as my niece (which is where my niece got it, I imagine).

[Operation Ripper]

Yeah, how do you know your redheaded freak southpaw stepchield of a niece didn't just flat-out attack the boy? Sexist much? She boarded a bus with a freakin' hacksaw bitch!

[Vinyl Turnip]

It sucks, but I don't think the scenario is particularly uncommon, or even new. Ages ago when I was in elementary school I had some trouble with being picked on, and my parents strongly encouraged me to fight back if I were hit (to go for the nose, in fact), convinced it was the best way to prevent future bullying. When they said as much during a parent-teacher conference, though, they were told it would violate the school policy and I'd essentially receive the same punishment even if it were in self-defense. "Run and tell the teacher" was the encouraged solution. (One which, as you can imagine, wasn't really the best way to discourage future bullying.)

I guess from the school's perspective they want to prevent all physical contact between students, and any fight will inevitably degenerate into a he-said/he-said (subsititute gender pronouns as required) over who started it.

My parents were more concerned about me not getting my ass kicked, however, and assured me that if I got in "trouble" for defending myself in school they would not be angry.

[Operation Ripper]

Ya'll related to the Winklers? (http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/19/winkler.trial/index.html)

[thirdwarning]

In a lot of schools it doesn't matter if you hit first or hit back, everybody gets suspended. So you just can't defend yourself, or you get into big trouble.

[Zoe]

I'm not sure where Central Cascadia is, but I suspect that your niece has a right to defend herself. The rules change if this took place outside the USA or if she is in a private school. Besides, IANAL.

But speaking as a teacher, you really don't want to get your niece trained in retaliatory violence. These days it doesn't just make people leave you alone. It sometimes ends in death quite early. I would teach the child to grab the nearest witness and rat the offender out to the nearest teacher or go straight to the principal. If that accomplishes nothing, the parent should go to school. If the principal still does nothing, let the principal know that if the child is hit again by another student and nothing is done, a complain will be filed with the district office (or the principal's boss). That will get the principal's attention.

Please don't teach the child to hit back. I understand why you and the mother would want to, but it won't be long before the other kid goes home and gets a gun. It happened to one of my students.

[Auntbeast]

Was the little boy suspended?

I got into a fight with a boy in the 6th grade. I won. School only found out because he went to class crying. I didn't get suspended.

[wring]

Was the principal specifically telling her not to hit back because she was a girl or was it a general policy for all children? I agree that it's wrong to make gender-specific policies like that but I can see the principal's point if the rule is "no hitting other students - even if they hit you first."my son's school had a 'no hit' policy - the way it played out was that if two students hit ech other, both would be disciplined. if one student hit, it was considered 'horseplay' joking around. I pointed out that for a student who was hit that meant your choice was to hit back & get suspended, or be hit all the time w/o consequneces for the hitter. they stood fast.

[Gentle Robot]

Zero tolerance policies are indicative of laziness IMO. Everyone thinks their little johnny is perfect and the administration doesn't want to put up with asshole kids' asshole parents.

[MissTake]

I hope the boy who started it was also disciplined.

When The Kid was in preschool she dealt with a little terror. She's always been thin and she has a fairly delicate face. Bruiser was a chunk of a kid who delighted in pushing her around. The preschool wouldn't take action. So I taught her how to throw a punch.

Suffice it to say, her father and I were called in a few days later. Bruiser pushed her hard into a door frame, bruising her shoulder pretty bad. So she punched him. Bloodied his nose.

When we spoke with the director I had my lovely calendar of every time Bruiser tormented her and every contact with her teacher. The director supposedly had no idea it was so bad (despite my having discussed the matter with her before). The Kid ended up okay. Bruiser was expelled. From preschool.

(And before anyone asks why she stayed there under that situation, I was receiving financial assistance to pay for the preschool. If I just upped and moved her I would have lost assistance and could not afford to pay full price out of pocket)

The bad side to having her taught her not to take anyones shit is that she thinks she can always "finish" it.

[Rubystreak]

My school has a zero tolerance policy-- if you hit, you get suspended. I have a student who got a knife pulled on him. He was in a verbal altercation with another kid and there was shoving, but the other kid pulled a knife, and then fisticuffs. No one got hurt. Both were suspended. My student got 3 days out of school; the other kid got 5 + a disciplinary hearing, which could lead to more time out. I say, in a situation like that, you take your 3 days, be glad you didn't get stabbed, and be careful who you get into it with as a life fucking lesson. I like the kid a lot and he's a nice kid, and I'm glad he defended himself, but he did get in a shoving match, and has to have some consequences for that.

What else is the school supposed to do, take sides in a fight between kids? Usually when people lay hands on each other, both are at fault and contributed to the escalation; the punishment usually reflects the level at which you contributed to the violence. Tends to come out pretty fair usually.

You weren't there when your niece and this other kid got into it. Likely it went both ways, and likely there were witnesses who would attest to that if it got to the point of suspension. If your sister doesn't care that her kid is getting into fist fights in kindergarten on a regular basis (note that you said "again," implying a chronic problem, not just one incident), then that's bully for her (pun intended), though I think that's a big red flag for a behavioral problem. Most kids don't get into lots of physical fights-- it's usually the same kids over and over, and they have problems. Hey, maybe your niece doesn't, but maybe you're biased too. I see that a lot: "my kid is the vicim/hero, the other kid is the Devil!" It's a little old now, and rarely if ever true.

As for her spending time at home, I don't know about your niece's school, but here you don't get to stay home if you get suspended. You go to a different place where you do work with a tutor, in isolation all day. Much better punishment IMO.

[Rubystreak]

Oh yeah, and making this a gender issue? Bullshit. It's not, I guarantee it. I could just as easily contend that you're encouraging a girl to hit boys and implying that she should get away with it. You do see that's absurd, don't you?

[athelas]

Zero tolerance rules (which is what I assume happened in the OP) generally suck, and are indicative of administrative laziness: "don't bother getting to the bottom of it; just follow the ironclad rule." However, I don't like the inaccuracy of the thread title, implying a gender bias when there is none.

[lissener]

A child should be taught the difference between defense and retaliation.

[guizot]

I would teach the child to grab the nearest witness and rat the offender out to the nearest teacher or go straight to the principal.I agree with you completely, Zoe, but I'm uncomfortable with the term "rat out." I think we should tell the girl to "report" the incident. THEN, after talking with a counselor, and after a counselor has talked with the asshole boy, if it happens again, I say, GO FOR IT. At some point in their maturation, women should learn self-defense (unfortunately). The earlier the better. There should even be a class which a least tells young girls that if a boy molests them more than once in anyway, they should kick him in the balls. And they should report it and let the statistics reflect the reality.

[Vinyl Turnip]

A child should be taught the difference between defense and retaliation.

"All right, now I want you to try to hit daddy. Make a fist and try to hit daddy's nose. Ok, see how I used my arms to block you from hitting me? That's defense. Ok, now do it again. Okay... okay, now, see, what I just did was retaliation for you hitting me. Okay... honey, I know it hurts, but you need to stop crying. It's just a little blood... where are you going?"

[lissener]

Hee. Point being, if the girl in the OP struck back in retaliation, consequences are appropriate. If she struck him because otherwise he would have continued hitting her, consequences--if any--should be lesser. (Nobody said it was gonna be easy.)

[Quiddity Glomfuster]

You don't teach a girl to protect herself by teaching her to get into fights. You teach her that it's not all right for anybody to hit anybody and that if some idiot (boyfriend, schoolmate, whoever) hits her, she needs to notify authorities. Immediately.

What kind of people are saying she should be taught to 'fight back'? Is this not the 21st Century? Are we not supposed to have progressed beyond stupid brute force as a way to resolve conflicts yet?

Cripes.

[Traveling Riverside Bluesman]

Well, this happened to my brother two days ago. His choices were either get wailed on in a corner, or fight back. He pushed the kid away in order to escape. Seems like a reasonable response to me. Teaching kids to defend themselves, like my brother did, gives them a chance to go tell some one before they get badly hurt.

I sure as hell would not let somebody hit me until a teacher broke it up. But, due to zero tolerance, he is suspended for getting away and trying to avoid injury. He didn't hit or punch the kid, he just pushed him to get away.

Seems like a lazy rule to me. All you have to say is, whoever is fighting is in trouble, but if you are defending yourself, no harm done, as long as it is clear that is what you were doing. In this case there were plenty of witnesses to back him up, but it doesn't matter with their rules.

[Argent Towers]

I really honestly think the only effective way to deal with physical bullying is to fight back. When I was in 5th grade I took a little bullying from some big older kids, and after a few weeks I'd had enough and punched one of them in the face, giving him a bloody nose. We both got sent to the principal's office, we were both told how wrong fighting was - no suspension, not even a call to the parents, believe it or not. He never bothered me again. In fact, nobody ever bothered me again.

I wasn't bullied again until 9th grade, by a big hardass farm kid on the wrestling team. I took that for a few weeks, unsure of what to do (hadn't dealt with big hardass farm kids until high school,) and then I challenged him to a fight. I lost this one (after a very tough struggle for him, I might add,) but honestly that didn't even matter. I'd stood up to a guy who had 4 inches and 40 pounds on me. No more bullying after that.

It's too bad there are bullshit zero tolerance policies. Sometimes you have to fight back - within reason.

I'll add that I don't think this mentality extends to adulthood. There's just too much at stake, and too many lawyers out there. But kids? Let them smack each other around a little - what's the big deal? Recess can be a machivellian power struggle.

[Mister Rik]

Well, I hope things have changed since I was in grade school many many years ago. Teachers and playground "monitors" never saw a thing when it was one or more bullies thumping on somebody/me, and wouldn't do a damn thing if the victim/me "reported" it to them.

[DrDeth]

And the Principal is right and the OP is wrong. Fighting is not good. Hitting back is the wrong thing. Telling the teacher is the right thing. Not matter if it is boys vs boys girls vs girls or girls vs boys. At that age anyway. You don't hit back- you tell. Not for everything sure. No one like a tattler. So if it's a spitwad, you don't tattle but if anyone hits you hard- you tell.

I will bet anything that the Principal did not suggest "....they'll know to just put up with it!" and in fact hitting back is a very bad idea for women with a abusive male. You call the Police. You press charges. He goes to jail. Hitting back just means he gets even more angry and he kills her.

Now sure, if it is going to be rape or murder, then you fight back anyway. But if all you are going to get out of it is a black eye, you accept the black eye as evidence for when he goes away to be "Leroy's special bitch", and you have gotten revenge far sweeter and safer than "hitting back". He'll learn the real meaning of "spousal abuse" when he becomes the abused "spouse".

I do suggest that women take some self-defence courses certainly- sometmes you will be afraid for your life and then you have to fight for your life. But that is not "hitting back". That is fighting for your life- which the little 5yo girl was not doing.

Violence is bad. Even from 5yo girls.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Is this not the 21st Century? Are we not supposed to have progressed beyond stupid brute force as a way to resolve conflicts yet?

Turned on the news lately?

[Quiddity Glomfuster]

Turned on the news lately?
I thought the denizens of SDMB considered themselves civilized. If I wanted to see people advocating violence, I'd watch TV. I'm hoping for better from this place.

[Traveling Riverside Bluesman]

What about those of us advocating self defense? Are we allowed to consider ourselves civilized?

[guizot]

You don't teach a girl to protect herself by teaching her to get into fights. You teach her that it's not all right for anybody to hit anybody That's why I say the FIRST time it happens that if some idiot (boyfriend, schoolmate, whoever) hits her, she needs to notify authorities. Immediately. Then, if the "authorities" don't take appropriate action, then we should prepare women for the realities of today. What kind of people are saying she should be taught to 'fight back'? Is this not the 21st Century? Are we not supposed to have progressed beyond stupid brute force as a way to resolve conflicts yet?This panglossian view, unfortunately, while admirable, is not a sufficient way to protect women--especially young women--from the advantages (physical) that males take upon them (usually simply upon unexpected impulse).

Of course, it depends upon the situation. While young boys are not always that much stronger than their female counterparts, it's the psychology that really matters here, because later, the males will be much stronger physically. A shark will avoid as prey an animal that fights back (their eyes can be dammaged, etc.). Many other animals will do the same; the idea is to take the weak and easy prey; for a lion or cheetah, the injured gazelle that can't keep up with the rest of the pack, etc. So for a girl (or a woman) that can show IN THE MOMENT, that she'll resist, use some kind of counter-active force...that has a high likelihood of sending off the predatory male.

It's better to have a violent though purely physical encounter than a violent encounter in which the female is both psychologically and physically injured.

[guizot]

I thought the denizens of SDMB considered themselves civilized. If I wanted to see people advocating violence, I'd watch TV. I'm hoping for better from this place.I have the same hopes as you, QG. But "civilization" is full of violence. It was created by violence. The question has always been, violence against whom, and perpertrated by whom.

The advocation of violence is omnipresent today. You shouldn't think that a SDMB thread about a little girl is contributing to world conflict, or the denigration of "world civilization." (At least not if you've opened a decent newspaper recently.)

[Quiddity Glomfuster]

It's better to have a violent though purely physical encounter than a violent encounter in which the female is both psychologically and physically injured.
Have you been in a violent relationship? Do you know what the advice to women in such relationships is?

[Gary Kumquat]

And the Principal is right and the OP is wrong. Fighting is not good. Hitting back is the wrong thing. Telling the teacher is the right thing. Not matter if it is boys vs boys girls vs girls or girls vs boys. At that age anyway. You don't hit back- you tell. Not for everything sure. No one like a tattler. So if it's a spitwad, you don't tattle but if anyone hits you hard- you tell.

I disagree.

Some kids are nasty. They can also be devious little shits. I know this from being a nasty, devious little shit of a kid who used to bully the hell out of other kids. Being clever, I made damned sure not to leave a mark, or get caught. Kids who reported me, it came down to my word versus theirs, so very little happened - the teachers were suspicious, but what could they do?

Then, two to three weeks after the report, I'd really go to town on them, and make damned sure they knew not to grass me up again. A good bully can inflict a shitload of damage on another kid and leave very little in the way of obvious bruising or evidence. I learnt it from the kids who had bullied me, and I was a good study. I inflicted it on other kids, and did so for years without getting caught.

In the end, my entire class ganged up on me, and I got some well earned payback. I had it coming to me, and I'm glad it happened - I got some very pointed lessons over a period of time as to what it felt like to be on the receiving end, and frankly it allowed me to turn a few things around.

By all means argue that hitting back is bad and two wrongs don't make a right - morally, I'm sure you're correct. Unfortunately, it isn't going to keep someone safe even in the protected environment of school, yet alone faced with the dangers of life outside of school.

Sometimes, when someone hits you, hitting them back as hard as you fucking can is exactly what you should do.

[drachillix]

Have you been in a violent relationship? Do you know what the advice to women in such relationships is?

Leave.

Ther is a huge difference between being cornered by a bully and smacked around and clinging to an abusive s/o.

Sure fighting should always be at least plan B, but schools can be big places and depending on the age/size of the kids involved any given staff member may not be capable of intervening effectively.

Fact of any form of conflict, if the attacker has to deal with defensive effort, some of his offensive effectiveness is lost. Bullets, fists, armored vehicles, does not matter. Don't be the path of least resistance.

[guizot]

Have you been in a violent relationship?Yes, of course with neighbors, I lived in South (Central) L.A. (You know, Harpies, Salvachutras, 18th St., etc.) We always ended up working things out.

If you are specifically referring to a relationship with a woman, I have to say "no," physically (but I belive violence can be psychological, as well.) I have never laid a violent hand on any woman. But if I had, I would have expected an equal response.

Typically, she just hits me softly in jest, to show that I'm being an "hijo'e'puta."Do you know what the advice to women in such relationships is?Well, I'm not a counselor or psychologist, so I can only speculate. I'd say, "You need to talk to at least a very good friend or relative. But that's not enough. You also need to talk to some kind of profressional. If you can't afford it, call immediately to make an appointment with a clinic that suits you, and that you can afford."

[Odesio]

The principal of my elementary school said the same thing to my mother after I used retalitory violence against another 1st grader. This put my mother in a very bad mood as she had been complaining for more than a month that I was being picked on. Essentially, she said the same thing as the mother in the OP.

I don't think it was because she was a girl. Schools try to teach everybody not to defend themselves against violent people.

Marc

[guizot]

You don't teach a girl to protect herself by teaching her to get into fights. You teach her that it's not all right for anybody to hit anybody and that if some idiot (boyfriend, schoolmate, whoever) hits her, she needs to notify authorities. Immediately.Amen.

At what point don't we agree on this?

All I'm saying is that--some times--at some points--she might have to defend herself physically

The "authorities" aren't always there." When the "authorities" don't take action, or when they aren't present, are you saying that self-defense is wrong, or against some religious doctrine?

It seems I'm not making myself clear.

[LouisB]

The worst beating I ever took was the result of standing up to a bully; he beat the living daylights out of me, but it took him a long time to do it and he sustained a little damage himself. He was seventeen and a (high school) football player; I was fourteen and scrawny. Even so, he never attempted to bully me again. Both of us were chewed out by the principal, made to shake hands, and that was the end of it.

[RTFirefly]

my son's school had a 'no hit' policy - the way it played out was that if two students hit ech other, both would be disciplined. if one student hit, it was considered 'horseplay' joking around. I pointed out that for a student who was hit that meant your choice was to hit back & get suspended, or be hit all the time w/o consequneces for the hitter. they stood fast.That's totally crazy, of course. Normally, no teacher or playground monitor notices anything untoward is going on anyway unless the person getting hit, tripped, or whatever decides to fight back. But with that attitude on the part of the school, bullies can be a lot less circumspect about their "horseplay."

I don't really see any workable alternative to teaching a kid to fight back. The teachers can't be everywhere and see everything - far from it. If Kid A hits Kid B, Kid B complains to the teacher, and Kid A denies everything, the teacher can't do anything. And as Gary Kumquat testifies, Kid A can do a great deal before anyone sees it.

The message one should teach one's kids, I think, is to not start or provoke fights. But the best way to keep people from starting fights with you is to be ready to finish them.

[Slithy Tove]

My daughter was taught to put up as big a fight as possible if anyone tried to molest of abduct her. If she lacked the maturity to discern between an adult predator and a shcoolyard bully and used violence as the default reation toward the latter, tough shit.

When she reached her teens and could be expected to use a measured response, I taught her how to appeal an authority figure for conflict resolution in a way that would not result in the typical harried middle management non-response "oh, well, there's plenty of blame to go around between the two of you" bullshit.

Meanwhile, the grandfather who had been the 1954 Army boxing champ in his weight division taught her to throw a punch, and the lifetime NRA-member grandfather taught her how to aim for the center of the body mass.

[fisha]

Here's an idea I've been mulling over for a while. Do you think the escalation in violence in schools is because there is a zero tolerance? If kids are able to release aggression in rough horseplay, or minor fist fights when they're younger, do you think that it keeps them from grabbing a knife or a gun when they hit high school?

[athelas]

That may well be part of it. Many of the school shootings are by those who feel put down in school. Their options are the following:

1) Report it, nothing will happen
2) Hit back, get suspended
3) Get revenge in what appears to be a really satisfying way.

As a former victim of bullying, I'm not surprised that some (already emotionally unstable) kids choose the third route.

[Mellivora capensis]

Ah well, I guess I'll be the minority report then.

My philosophy, after 12 years in boarding school, is fight back. Even if you get pummelled, that one sweet punch you manage to sneak through is worth it. It does wonders for your self esteem. If you both get suspended, too bad. Life doesn't begin and end in school. On the street there are no teachers to run to, and no witnesses prepared to testify.

You're on your own. Always.

[Ludovic]

Typically, she just hits me softly in jest, to show that I'm being an "hijo'e'puta."Ahhh, that explains a phrase that one of my friends uses all the time (an English translation of the above.) He's from Miami.

[Quartz]

I wish I had hit back at school.

[The Flying Dutchman]

I'm sure that most of North American schools will suspend for fighting regardless of the justification. This is good for society at large. Even grown men who play hockey know that, and suspensions are a non violent consequence compared to the strap of years ago.

Having said that, fighting back is the only course many kids have to maintain the respect of their peers who just don't know any better. If you are tagged as a wuss and a pushover or rat to the man, you will lose your standing.

I have two daughters. The eldest never fought, but her earlier school years were a struggle as a social outcast.

My second daughter was a fighter right from kindergarten. Funny, because she didn't like it and she would come home, and break into tears over it. She is a very popular girl with a ton of friends. Frequency of episodes diminished over time to my relief and her school life seems to have stabalized. She is well aware today, approaching 16 that violence is not the answer to resolve conflict.

Kids know what needs to be done to get respect. The real solution to the problem is vigilence by teachers on the school ground to interject and suspend to prevent schoolyard violence from getting out of hand.

[BubbaDog]

I told my high school age kids that if they hit somebody and get suspended I will punish them. I also told them that if somebody hits them that they can choose to ignore, report, or fight back. If they get suspended for that, not to worry. Daddy will sue the shit out of the school for not protecting his baby and encouraging aggression in the bad kids who will hit the good kids because they know the good kids will remain passive to avoid suspension.

.

[Constant Reader]

Well, I hope things have changed since I was in grade school many many years ago. Teachers and playground "monitors" never saw a thing when it was one or more bullies thumping on somebody/me, and wouldn't do a damn thing if the victim/me "reported" it to them.

And this is what always pissed me off the most. I was picked on a lot when I was younger. When I did complain to the monitors they did nothing. There was a particular boy who was constantly assaulting me. I was very small for my age and I remember him as a giant. I told my Mother, she marched us down to the principal's office where we were told, "oh, that boy just likes you and that's how he's showing it. Just ignore him and he'll stop." Yeah see, I had already been ignoring him for months and the assaults were getting worse. My Father then instituted the "if someone hits you, you hit them back rule". I hit back and got in trouble. I pretty much lost all faith in so-called authority figures early on in life.

[Thudlow Boink]

I have some sympathy for your point of view, Phase42, but I also have some questions:

Would your outrage have been the same if your niece were a nephew? (i.e. it had been a boy who was reprimanded for hitting back)

Does it matter to you how badly the other boy was hurt? Would you still be outraged if he had wound up in the hospital?

Do you honestly believe that "hit back" and "put up with it" are the only alternatives when someone attacks you?

Do you not see why people like the principal might not be really sensitive about making sure a school—even a kindergarten—is a safe place, and the students aren't in danger of violence from one another?

[Rubystreak]

That may well be part of it. Many of the school shootings are by those who feel put down in school. Their options are the following:

1) Report it, nothing will happen
2) Hit back, get suspended
3) Get revenge in what appears to be a really satisfying way.

As a former victim of bullying, I'm not surprised that some (already emotionally unstable) kids choose the third route.

#1 should not happen. It's the responsibility of the school to take kids seriously when they report bullying. I know I do. I think it's pretty well-handled here, though not perfectly, since we can't be everywhere and see everything.

I think there is a major difference between defending yourself and hitting back/retaliating. It's important to teach kids that there's a difference, and that the "really satisfying" revenge is wrong and likely to cause you more problems. I personally don't want to raise a kid that thinks he should do the really satisfying, wrong thing. YMMV.

[Auntbeast]

Did any one read the story of the old folks from the cruise line that someone/people tried to rob?

Our society LOVES to tell us that the teachers/police/whomever will protect us if we Do The Right Thing and not fight back, except there is a lot of dead folks laying around that the police/teachers/whomever could not protect.

Yes, we are talking specifically about a child, a young child. Now let's see how different Vermont, 9/11, Colombine would have been if we weren't told from a young age to be a bunch of sheep.

[nashiitashii]

#1 should not happen. It's the responsibility of the school to take kids seriously when they report bullying. I know I do. I think it's pretty well-handled here, though not perfectly, since we can't be everywhere and see everything.


It shouldn't, but from my experience, it's the case most of the time. I remember being younger and being bullied by older kids, then scolded by the people in charge because they thought that (because of my size) that I was the bully and that I must be older and thus more responsible for the behavior. This, of course, also happened when the person in charge was my own teacher, knew I was in her class, and scolded me because someone who was two grades higher had been picking on me. :rolleyes: Way to encourage a healthy perspective for an elementary school kid.

Of course, there are times when parental interference work out. My older brother went to a school in the '80s where, as a white kid, he was a pretty big minority. Back then, some kids took up the tradition of "Cracker Day" meaning "beat up the white kids day." Couple of guys start to try to beat him up, he defends himself, and ONLY HE got punished. My mom takes off work to go to the school and has a discussion with the principal about this; apparently she lit a fire under his ass about this enough to completely cancel out whatever punishment that was originally given. But this was over 20 years ago, and now we have zero tolerance policies that prevent common sense to be used.

[catsix]

DrDeth said:
And the Principal is right and the OP is wrong. Fighting is not good. Hitting back is the wrong thing. Telling the teacher is the right thing. Not matter if it is boys vs boys girls vs girls or girls vs boys. At that age anyway. You don't hit back- you tell. Not for everything sure. No one like a tattler. So if it's a spitwad, you don't tattle but if anyone hits you hard- you tell.

And the bully will wait until you're alone, no teacher around, nobody to cry to, and they pummel you harder.

You will be seen as a victim, weak and incapable of defense.

I will bet anything that the Principal did not suggest "....they'll know to just put up with it!" and in fact hitting back is a very bad idea for women with a abusive male. You call the Police. You press charges. He goes to jail. Hitting back just means he gets even more angry and he kills her.


He gets out of jail, ignores the restraining order because a piece of paper against a violent criminal is as useless as tits on a boar hog, and he kills her.

Or she fights back, defends herself successfully with or without a weapon, and he learns that hitting her is a really, really bad idea (or he's dead).

The point of self defense is to use exactly as much force as is necessary to stop the person who is attacking you from doing so.

Sometimes that means you have to incapacitate or kill the attacker.

RTFirefly said:
The message one should teach one's kids, I think, is to not start or provoke fights. But the best way to keep people from starting fights with you is to be ready to finish them.

My father gave my sister and me one rule about fights: you never throw the first punch. He taught us not to start a fight, and then he told us that if someone starts one with you, make damn sure you finish it.

[Marley23]

What kind of people are saying she should be taught to 'fight back'? Is this not the 21st Century? Are we not supposed to have progressed beyond stupid brute force as a way to resolve conflicts yet?
Resolving differences of opinion with violence is uncivilized. Defending yourself against force is regrettable but occasionally necessary if you want to be practical about it. It's a mistake to make a this into a matter of principles, but if we have to do that, I'd ask this: is it really a good thing for society to tell people "don't solve your own problems, rely on authority for everything?"

[AHunter3]

I went totally nonviolent when I was 8 or 9 in 3rd grade and stuck with it until I was 15 in Junior High School. Would not fight back, would not defend myself physically. I'd get furious, defend myself verbally, and would indeed go and tell the authority figures if I were being assaulted or harassed.

Here's my results:

• Anger and fear twist your stomach all to pieces and leave you shaking, and people can tell, and they find it funny and taunt you & pick on you more because they can tell that they are getting to you

• Other folks' mileage may differ, but I started out with the impression that the adultworld was a world not run by coercion and intimidation but instead was one in which the righteous law-abiding civilized citizenry were in charge, one where principles came before favoritism or opportunism, one where with rare exceptions the people in authority did not use their authority to favor themselves or their friends or their personal causes but instead weilded their authority with great fairness and even-handedness. By the time it was over, I was pretty much of the opinion that the people in charge were in charge for no particular reason other than the fact that they'd won the power struggles, and that as long as there existed people who liked power over other people it would be those people, to a disproportionate extent, who would rise to positions of authority as long as such positions existed. And so, ultimately, when I was running to "tell the teacher", I was most often turning to one bully for protection against another.

• I was not especially admired by the adults for being "civilized", for being self-controlled and self-disciplined. In fact, male adults were often contemptuous of me, hostile, said I was "sneaky" and was somehow cleverly setting up and doing in those fine young men whom I was accusing of harassing me. As I got older, female adults were less and less sympathetic and occasionally hostile as well.

• When you stay out of fights from the age of 9 to the age of 15, you're effectively unable to fight. What you once knew you've forgotten, and a nearly full-sized person who tries to fight as they did when they were 9 isn't going to be formidable or effective. In particular, little kids don't put their weight behind their blows because they don't have much weight, and they do their damage by flailing.

• Lots of anger and fear that isn't given an effective outlet tends to ferment and turn very dark. I can totally imagine my 5th grade self up in a clock tower with an automatic rifle. I had significant and powerful and perpetual hate for a great many of my classmates, mostly boys. I did not want them to accept me, I did not want them to like me. I wanted them to leave me the hell alone, and really I just wanted them to not be. Such people should not exist, their very existence was an effrontery.

My advice would be to discuss violence and authority and the relevant moral and philosophical issues with the kid. These matters are no more beyond the mental capabilities of a grade-school kid than mixed fractions. Instead of telling the kid to DO THIS when THAT happens, get into conversations about the outcome of doing ANY of the possible things one could do in response to violence. Everything has consequences. DON'T make the kid promises that "if you do XXX, everything will work out all right and get properly and fairly straightened out in the end".

[storyteller0910]

#1 should not happen. It's the responsibility of the school to take kids seriously when they report bullying. I know I do. I think it's pretty well-handled here, though not perfectly, since we can't be everywhere and see everything.

I think there is a major difference between defending yourself and hitting back/retaliating. It's important to teach kids that there's a difference, and that the "really satisfying" revenge is wrong and likely to cause you more problems. I personally don't want to raise a kid that thinks he should do the really satisfying, wrong thing. YMMV.

I think this is a marvelous theory, and one toward which we should all strive. It also just doesn't work. Maybe you take reports of bullying seriously, but your outlook as described above seems to me to overlook that:

(1) Not every authority figure, nor even most authority figures, take these reports seriously. When I was in high school, I was a semi-nerd; I took the advanced and AP classes. The folks who picked on and bullied the nerds were by and large the athletes. I had a friend who was constantly abused in the locker room - not brutalized or beaten senseless, just whapped with towels, flicked, slapped, and so on. The guys doing it were the football players. The authority figure teaching the gym class was the football coach - who himself blatantly mocked the "Techers" in the medical science magnet program in which I and friend were enrolled. How do you think those reports of bullying went for my friend?

Not to mention that:

(2) There are incredibly intense pressures informing against making reports. Other kids will mock and/or refuse to associate with you if you are perceived as a whiner. Even teachers will make fun of the tattletales. The bully himself (or very, very rarely, herself) is very likely to find a way to redouble the attack if you get him in trouble.

Me? I fought back. I was small but I worked contracting so I had more strength than people expected. I have never hit anyone, ever, who didn't hit me first. But I hit back if I was attacked. The first time I was bullied in the locker room was the last. Hell, it's not ideal, but it got me through high school without ever sustaining a broken nose or a broken arm, and I grew up into about the least violent adult you'll probably ever meet.

Which is to say that I agree with the OP, although I don't think the gender of either kid is relevant in this particular case.

[Rubystreak]

But this was over 20 years ago, and now we have zero tolerance policies that prevent common sense to be used.

Right. Zero tolerance for violence lacks common sense. You're absolutely correct. Kids should hit each other with impunity if they state that they were defending themselves. Fight violence with violence, that should be school policy. :rolleyes:

[Canadiangirl]

All through high school, this girl used to pick on me unmercifully. Just because. She was the tough, mouthy one and I was the peaceful, "ignore her, she'll go away".

She eventually did go away.

But, if I could go back, I'd punch her right in the nose. It would have ended a hell of a lot sooner.

[Quiddity Glomfuster]

Now let's see how different Vermont, 9/11, Colombine would have been if we weren't told from a young age to be a bunch of sheep.
Boy, these posts explain a lot about why so many people get killed in that country of yours. This whole 'beat the crap out of anybody that gets in your face' mentality is real, real creepy.

[storyteller0910]

Right. Zero tolerance for violence lacks common sense. You're absolutely correct. Kids should hit each other with impunity if they state that they were defending themselves. Fight violence with violence, that should be school policy. :rolleyes:

Isn't there a bit of a middle ground you're excluding there? Isn't there room for a policy that is neither "fight violence with violence" nor "no room for interpretation, discussion, explanation, or actually tailoring your response to a particular situation?"

[Mellivora capensis]

Boy, these posts explain a lot about why so many people get killed in that country of yours. This whole 'beat the crap out of anybody that gets in your face' mentality is real, real creepy.

Err, Quiddity, I think you've missed her point. The way I read it is that it is precisely because of the "do not hit back" rule that the Columbines occur in the first place.

[Sarahfeena]

Err, Quiddity, I think you've missed her point. The way I read it is that it is precisely because of the "do not hit back" rule that the Columbines occur in the first place. Yes, that's how I took it, too, and I agree. I think it's important for kids to learn to defend themselves. If my daughter (or son, for that matter) was hit by someone in school, I would tell them to go ahead and hit the kid right back, no matter what the school policy was.

[Mellivora capensis]

Yes, that's how I took it, too, and I agree. I think it's important for kids to learn to defend themselves. If my daughter (or son, for that matter) was hit by someone in school, I would tell them to go ahead and hit the kid right back, no matter what the school policy was.

//complete and utterly worthless, mindless and ill-timed hijack, but I need to know//

Sarahfeena, I've always wondered, and if I may ask now, where does your screen name come from?

[Stuffy]

#1 should not happen. It's the responsibility of the school to take kids seriously when they report bullying. I know I do. I think it's pretty well-handled here, though not perfectly, since we can't be everywhere and see everything.

This (bolded) is precisely where the zero tolerance policy breaks down. The policy then becomes be a good little victim until the bully makes a mistake and gets caught. The bully knows this too. I had this issue come up a couple of years ago with one of my sons. Repeated assaults on my son, repeated visits and phone calls to the school. It didn't end until my son knocked the snot out of the other kid.

[Sarahfeena]

//complete and utterly worthless, mindless and ill-timed hijack, but I need to know//

Sarahfeena, I've always wondered, and if I may ask now, where does your screen name come from? Of course you may ask! It's nothing too exciting. My name is Sarah, and my husband, being of Hispanic background, calls me Sarafina sometimes. I anglicized the spelling to go with the real spelling of my name, and to make it easier to get as a screen name (Sarafina is often already taken).

Turnabout it fair play...how about your screen name? :)

[Rubystreak]

First of all, the zero tolerance policy =/= same punishment for everyone. This is a simplistic and incorrect interpretation people are chosing to make to bolster their argument. In the example I gave, both kids were hitting, so both were suspended. The boy with the knife got a MUCH harsher punishment than the boy without one. I also think if a kid is clearly defending himself and there were witnesses, he would get a different penalty than a known or observed bully.

However, if you think the answer to violence is more violence, then I still think you should have consequences. The stubborn insistence that hitting is the only answer betrays a lack of imagination, not to mention moral development. Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. If you cannot handle the situation any other way, then violence it is. I highly doubt this is usually the case when kids hit each other. I also don't think this is the message schools want to give kids.

Those of you advocating hitting as a way of "ending" violence I'm sure would be quite on the other side of things if it were your little angel who was alleged to be the bully when he got punched in the face. Yeah, your kid is always right, the other kid is a monster. I bet the other kid's parents think the exact same thing. What the fuck should the school do, have video cameras everywhere so that we can ascertain which kid is telling the truth? If people hit, they get punished. That feels right to me at least.

[Caridwen]

Boy, these posts explain a lot about why so many people get killed in that country of yours. This whole 'beat the crap out of anybody that gets in your face' mentality is real, real creepy.


And I think you have issues and you're a little creepy to make a statment like that. Yea, I guess the US is the only place where little kids hit each other. Read her post.

[saoirse]

My daughter was taught to put up as big a fight as possible if anyone tried to molest of abduct her. If she lacked the maturity to discern between an adult predator and a shcoolyard bully and used violence as the default reation toward the latter, tough shit.

I hope you also prepared her for winning the lottery. You want your daughter to go around getting in fights to protect from something that has an infinitesssimally small chance of occurring? Or was your ex trying to get custody?

There really is no other policy the schools can have. They can't allow fidtfighting. I taught my kids that they would probably have to get in a fight in school at some point, and that they would get disciplined for it. The school does not have the same role as the parents. The school is the government, or the church, and has its own interests.

OOPS ETA: My ex-wife fought all the time in grade school, and usually won. She was in two abusive relationships later on, bfore she met me.

[Pazu]

Have you been in a violent relationship? Do you know what the advice to women in such relationships is?

So what's the standard advice given to women in rape-prevention and self-defense seminars, then?

[athelas]

First of all, the zero tolerance policy =/= same punishment for everyone. This is a simplistic and incorrect interpretation people are chosing to make to bolster their argument. In the example I gave, both kids were hitting, so both were suspended. The boy with the knife got a MUCH harsher punishment than the boy without one.

Sure, because he had a weapon, which is also treated more seriously under ZT policies. If the defending kid had grabbed a baseball bat, then my guess would be that the punishments would have been the same. Do you have any evidence that ZT policies are usually applied with more nuance than the wording of the rule suggests, or do you just have a bald assertion?

I don't think putting gender into the equation is constructive. Girls can bully just as well as boys (often with more nuance), and the victims can be of either gender. Public schools are sufficiently hostile to boys as it is, without us inaccurately painting bullying as a gender issue.

Quiddity, unsurprisingly, can't resist injecting national politics into a thread about little kids.

For those who advocate a nonviolent stance, how many of you were bullied or have a child who was bullied? High-minded idealism is easy to espouse when you don't have to deal with the realities of the matter.

[Stuffy]

If people hit, they get punished. That feels right to me at least.

Why should someone defending themselves be punished?

[storyteller0910]

The stubborn insistence that hitting is the only answer betrays a lack of imagination, not to mention moral development. Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. If you cannot handle the situation any other way, then violence it is. I highly doubt this is usually the case when kids hit each other.

I consider this to be stunningly naive, the statement of someone who has never been in a situation where the bullies won't stop if you ignore them and the authority figures don't care - or actively support the bullies.

[nashiitashii]

First of all, the zero tolerance policy =/= same punishment for everyone. This is a simplistic and incorrect interpretation people are chosing to make to bolster their argument. In the example I gave, both kids were hitting, so both were suspended. The boy with the knife got a MUCH harsher punishment than the boy without one. I also think if a kid is clearly defending himself and there were witnesses, he would get a different penalty than a known or observed bully.


Sometimes that doesn't work out so well, and the kid who was reacting to the bullying gets the harsher punishment. In a good number of cases, the bullying party is not punished in a manner that would actually curb the bullying behavior. There's just a lot of factors that go into these punishment decisions, and sometimes one of them is a teacher who favors the bullies and punishes the bullied. Zero tolerance doesn't tend to fix things too well in those situations because after a certain point, the favoring teacher just ignores the bullies.

[catsix]

Pazu said:
So what's the standard advice given to women in rape-prevention and self-defense seminars, then?

My class was advised to fight as hard and as dirty as you have to if you're defending yourself, because once you're in the position to need to defend yourself, you're way past the point where you're going to escape without injury.

The instructor advised us to use anything pointy to stab soft tissue, and anything blunt to hit hard tissue. Stomping insteps, biting, shoving a ball point pen in their eye.

He opened up with 'There's not one mother in this room who wouldn't savagely kill someone to save her child. By the time you leave, I want you to think the same thing about yourselves.'

That was the advice. Fight like your life depends on it.

[Algher]

We are mixing two issues: School bullies, where you have no jury trial system vs. violent assault where a cop, judge & jury will work on determining if you acted in self-defense. In the real world you have the right to defend yourself. At the school your obligation is not to fight unless you truly are at risk.

Even then, with a lack of evidence, self-defense will often result in suspension since there is an authority figure in the immediate vicinity that you could go to.

Zero-tolerance rules came into play not through laziness, but because of he said / she said lawsuits hitting schools. In the old days the principal could take the two kids into a room and already have a good idea who started it. The good kid was let off, and the well known bum kid was nailed to the wall. Then bum kid's mom hired an attorney and complained that just because she is poor/minority/working/less than perfect the school was discriminating against her little shit darling. The schools decided that it was not worth their time anymore to judge (or they would be judged). Hence ZT was born.

My under-sized son had a problem with a bully. He ended up in the principal's office and got a warning. I then requested a meeting and discussed the problems with this particular student that extended outside of the playground. The principal stonewalled. I gathered additional information from playground monitors and teachers. I went back to the principal.

"I understand your need for a zero-tolerance policy on the campus. I want you to know that at this point if my son is bullied again by this student, I will consider it a violation of his rights to an violence-free education. I am also concerned about his safety, and have no choice but to teach him more advanced self-defense than he already knows (a lie - he already knew). I expect you to solve this problem without further interaction."

When she attempted to respond, I told her that no response was necessary.

The bullying stopped. The boy was singled out by teachers and lost his recess priveldges. Sadly, he had been bullying others but no other parent had done a damned thing about it.

If the school would not have responded, then I was headed to his parents.

[Rubystreak]

Fine. Teach your kids it's OK to hit people. Please, go on. I'm obviously too naive (even though I've worked with kids for 8 years now) to have this conversation with all you victim/heroes or parents of same.

[Marley23]

Zero-tolerance rules came into play not through laziness, but because of he said / she said lawsuits hitting schools.
The schools decided that it was not worth their time anymore to judge
You're probably correct that those policies don't exist just because of laziness, but they allow for laziness, or even encourage it.

[Sarahfeena]

Fine. Teach your kids it's OK to hit people. Please, go on. I'm obviously too naive (even though I've worked with kids for 8 years now) to have this conversation with all you victim/heroes or parents of same.The thing is, you haven't convinced me that it isn't OK, if done in self-defense. Is there any circumstance in which you would consider it OK? What if there is no one in authority available, and there is danger of serious harm? At what point or in what situation is it morally acceptable to try to prevent yourself from being pummeled?

[Algher]

You're probably correct that those policies don't exist just because of laziness, but they allow for laziness, or even encourage it.

True - and I should have said that ZT did not come about JUST through laziness. I am sure that some laziness was involved as well.

I miss the good-old-days when cops & schools were allowed to make a few on-the-spot judgement calls.

Unfortunately, being human, one too many used their freedom to be racists, sexists, classists, etc. We responded by taking away their ability to use common sense and judgement.

What do we get? Sentencing limits on judges, zero-tolerance policies in schools, etc.

Sorry - mini rant thread hijack.

[Jayn_Newell]

Fine. Teach your kids it's OK to hit people. Please, go on. I'm obviously too naive (even though I've worked with kids for 8 years now) to have this conversation with all you victim/heroes or parents of same.
Have any useful advice on how to stop bullies? Because many of us have had to deal with schoolyard abuse, either physical or verbal, and found the old 'tell the teacher' or 'ignore it and they'll go away' (one of my most hated phrases) advice to be useless. I don't think anyone here thinks violence is the right answer, just the best, or even only, answer.

What does a kid do when the teachers know s/he's being bullied, but aren't doing anything about it? Soak it up?

[Algher]

Have any useful advice on how to stop bullies? Because many of us have had to deal with schoolyard abuse, either physical or verbal, and found the old 'tell the teacher' or 'ignore it and they'll go away' (one of my most hated phrases) advice to be useless. I don't think anyone here thinks violence is the right answer, just the best, or even only, answer.

What does a kid do when the teachers know s/he's being bullied, but aren't doing anything about it? Soak it up?

They are called parents. You go to them to deal with the school when the school will not listen. Parents then need to be firm, controlled, and persistent.

[asterion]

I personally think it comes from, once again, school being nothing like the real world (or an adult), no matter how much the people in change want to believe it's so. In the real world, if someone is harrasing you, you can get restraining orders and the like. In the real world, if someone jumps you, you have the right to defend yourself (to a degree of reasonable force, of course, though that can be very wide indeed.) There is HR to go to if it's happening at work. The courts are there if needed. None of this exists in a school environment.

[storyteller0910]

Fine. Teach your kids it's OK to hit people. Please, go on. I'm obviously too naive (even though I've worked with kids for 8 years now) to have this conversation with all you victim/heroes or parents of same.

First of all, this whole "people don't agree with me so I'm taking my ball and going home" thing is a little distasteful. If you're incapable of addressing the points that have been made, fine, but pretending that we're saying things we're not saying is tremendously dishonest.

You seem incapable of recognizing that there is a middle ground between what you appear to be espousing - "you must never strike anyone, ever, no matter what" - and what you keep trying to attribute to those arguing against you - "It's OK to hit people."

But if you truly believe that everyone else lacks imagination and competence, as you suggest in your posts here, tell me what a competent, imaginative person would do in the following situation:

Wesley is a high school sophomore. Eigth period gym class ended a little early today, so the boys in his class have extra time to kill before the bell rings. The kids are mostly unsupervised. Wesley is approached during this lull by another student, an athlete who is a little - though not enormously - bigger than Wesley. This other boy is feeling surly, and begins insulting Wesley, finally finding some pretense to challenge Wesley to a fight. Some of the bully's friends gather 'round in a loose circle, laughing and cheering: "FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT." No teacher in sight. Wesley knows that if he tries to run, the crowd - which wants to see a fight - will stop him. The bully shoves Wesley into a bank of lockers, hard enough that the back of Wesley's head bangs up against them. It hurts. Bully's coming forward again, definitely not to apologize. What should Wesley do?

If your answer is, "take his beating like a good little boy, then tell the teacher afterward," then please explain why Wesley has no right to take active steps to avoid physical pain (and potential injury). Also, for extra credit, please tell us what Wesley is to do when he tells the gym teacher - the bully's coach - and is told to toughen up.

And if you believe the scenario I've outlined above is anything like uncommon, then I submit to you that you weren't paying a whole lot of attention in high school.

When the time comes, I'll teach my daughter (and future children) that violence is almost always the wrong solution. I'll teach them that in the wrong situation, hitting back can even increase the danger of that situation. I'll teach them that it's dangerous to hit people. But I will also tell them that if, in their judgment, hitting back is the only way to keep from being harmed, then I won't blame them for it afterward.

Hitting is a tool. It's a crude tool, and a crappy tool in 99% of situations. But if I find myself in the 1% of situations, if someone is coming at me with the intention of causing me pain or injury and I can stop them by hitting back, it's a tool I will not abandon altogether.

[Slithy Tove]

Re: teaching my daughter to raise hell during an attempted abduction

I hope you also prepared her for winning the lottery. You want your daughter to go around getting in fights to protect from something that has an infinitesssimally small chance of occurring?

We lived in a tough working-class neighborhood where we could afford a house & build equity. When sex-offenders are released from prison, they can't afford houses in nice neighborhoods, so they rent in poorer areas. There was a child-rapist who was placed in a house on the same street where my daughter's girlfriends lived and played, who would stand on his porch and watch them, or he'd walk a few blocks over the their shcool and watch kids get on and off the bus from exactly the legally allowable limit. Every day as she walked to school, my daughter passed by the home of Teekah Lewis (http://www.angelfire.com/jazz/jazzyrose/Teekah.html) where a large banner was hung from the porch.

There are billions of birds and very few of them get eaten by cats, but if I had a canary and a cat, I'd keep the canary in its cage.

[Thudlow Boink]

We are mixing two issues: School bullies, where you have no jury trial system vs. violent assault where a cop, judge & jury will work on determining if you acted in self-defense. In the real world you have the right to defend yourself. At the school your obligation is not to fight unless you truly are at risk.And neither one of these is necessarily relevant to the OP.

The boy in the incident the OP described might have been acting as a bully, or he might not. We haven't been given enough information to be able to tell. For all I know, it could have been bullying, or it could have been hyperactive brattiness, or it could have been an innappropriate-but-understandable response to verbal teasing or other obnoxious provocation by the girl.

Then the OP goes on to compare this to domestic abuse ("when they're teenagers and adults and their boyfriends start slapping them around"). My understanding is that the appropriate response to something like this is to leave, or to tell the abuser to leave, or to call the police, or something like that, but not to hit back.

And this is different from the kind of violent assault or abduction attempt that catsix is talking about in post #72, above.

So there are more than two issues being mixed in this thread.

[Steve MB]

But the Principal doesn't say that, nosirree Bob. No, the Principal (male or female, I don't know) explained to my niece and my sister that just because a boy hits her, she doesn't have the right to hit him back. That's right, a girl is not allowed to defend herself. As my sister put it (sarcastically, natch), "Sure, let's program these girls properly, so that when they're teenagers and adults and their boyfriends start slapping them around, they'll know to just put up with it!"
Sounds like a situation where Bill O'Reilly's knack for stirring up the right-wing myrmidons can be turned into a force for good....

[guizot]

Ahhh, that explains a phrase that one of my friends uses all the time (an English translation of the above.) He's from Miami.I kind of wonder how he translates it.

[Yeticus Rex]

Thread from 2 years ago. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=305929&highlight=fight+principal)

My response. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5924710&postcount=87)

Currently, my oldest son has been on the receiving end of a few blows on two occasions in high school thus far, but on both occasions, the other party got the suspension even though my son was slated for suspension as well. Nowadays, parents are called in by the principal or assist. principal to be informed about the incidents. On both occasions, we told the principal to look at where the bruises are for each kid......and only then can they see who was the aggressor and who was the defender. (I had taught my son how to block punches, kicks and chokeholds.) Each time, my son had bruises on his forearms, shins and a black eye or a bump on the head. The other party(ies) had bruises on their knuckles......one kid even had to ask the school nurse for a bag of ice for his hand! I then asked the principal (and the police officer, who is automatically called by the school) if they can identify with confidence who is the aggressor and who is the defender. Neither one had a problem identifying who's who, and the other parties ended up with the reports and suspensions and my kid went back to school the next day.

What did we learn? Throwing a punch, even if it's retaliatory, is not considered "defending yourself", it is still considered aggressive behavior. Teach your kids how to block punches and kicks is considered defending yourself. I too, advocate that kids learn karate or judo so they can defend themselves and not get injured in the process, and also learn what the difference between defense and retaliation.

Retaliation is never considered as a form of defense.......the sooner you know that, the better off you are.......whether you are a kid at school or an employee at work, or out and about in public. Adapt to the rules I say. I know where Rune was coming from.

The only change in the above statement is that karate and judo might be seen as more offensive than defensive. The rest stands.

[Malacandra]

Meanwhile, these (http://news.uk.msn.com/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=4725274) ornaments to the parenting profession take their own approach to teaching children to deal with violence, and get a stern telling off from the judge and a slap on the wrist. :rolleyes:

[RedRosesForMe]

Thread from 2 years ago. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=305929&highlight=fight+principal)

My response. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5924710&postcount=87)



The only change in the above statement is that karate and judo might be seen as more offensive than defensive. The rest stands.

My question is this: why should someone be expected to take a beating, as it were? Blocking punches is good to know, but it sounds like a prolonged attack where your son still managed to get injured. Retaliation, as I see it, is someone shoving you or hitting you, but making no further attempt to harm you, and you shoving or hitting them back. In that case, if someone only hits you once but is not continuing to pose a threat, then reporting it to the authorities would be the best option. But if someone continues to hit you repeatedly, while you just try to dodge the punches or cover your face with your arms, seems like putting yourself in too much danger. If someone won't stop hitting you, I don't see how in that situation a good punch to the nose which stuns your attacker and allows you time to get away can be considered retaliation. To me, that seems like self-defense.

Once, I got jumped by 3 older girls, who kicked the crap out of me for several minutes while I did nothing but try to dodge their blows and protect my face. I ended up with a bloody nose and black eye and generally just got the shit kicked out of me. In hindsight, I would have taken a few swings at the biggest girl- hit the biggest one, and the others back down.

I think the problem here is that some don't see a difference between self-defense and retaliation. The latter is done out of anger, the former is a means of preventing more harm and giving yourself a chance to get away.

[Rubystreak]

First of all, this whole "people don't agree with me so I'm taking my ball and going home" thing is a little distasteful. If you're incapable of addressing the points that have been made, fine, but pretending that we're saying things we're not saying is tremendously dishonest.

You want me to argue with this mob of people who all seem to agree that, as Jayn_Newell said, violence is "the best, if not the only answer"? What am I supposed to say to that? It's going to be ugly, because you're totally wrong, and if that's what you're telling your kids, then you're fucked up. Is that distasteful to you? So be it. But what you have done in your subsequent festering pile is far, far more distasteful that anything I've said:

You seem incapable of recognizing that there is a middle ground between what you appear to be espousing - "you must never strike anyone, ever, no matter what" - and what you keep trying to attribute to those arguing against you - "It's OK to hit people."

Oh, this is rich. What you seem to be is incapable of reading. Talk about attributing words to someone that were never remotely said. Where did I say that no one should ever strike anyone, ever? I said when you hit someone, you should get consequences. THAT IS HOW THE REAL WORLD WORKS. You may choose to use violence in school or in the real world, if you see fit. But then you have to take whatever the punishment is for doing so, based on what violent action you chose to take and how much you hurt the other person.

Please show me how that means, "don't hit anyone, ever." I think it should be the last resort, when you are incapable of solving things any other way. That's what you should teach kids. You should teach them to defend themselves but not get revenge or "end things," certainly not with physical violence, and that's what hitting in school very often is. And if you do hit, you will very likely be punished. If you can deal with that, do what you have to do.

Wesley is a high school sophomore. Eigth period gym class ended a little early today, so the boys in his class have extra time to kill before the bell rings.

Oh, you ARE the little storyteller, aren't you? I am a teacher; I live in this environment every working day. I'm not going to buy into this idea that kids tell teachers they are being bullied and teachers don't care, and nothing is done, that the Wicked Coach is backing up the bully, that the kid has no recourse because no one in the WHOLE WIDE WORLD will help him, so he must do violence. If that's true, then the adults are fucked up and the kids' parents need to get involved. If they won't help him, then this is quite a dire scenario, isn't it? And not very creditable.

What do you do when you're being bullied? In my experience, parents who are remotely sane who advocate for their kids get results. Trying to beat up the captain of the football team who is bullying you is just going to get your ass kicked for you and then suspended. Your Wesley (is that you, Wesley?) character can and should defend himself. There is little chance that he would do any damage to the jock who is hitting him, and no one in the fucking world is telling people not to protect themselves or avoid harm. I think you lack perspective on this because your ass got kicked in high school. Hmm? That coloring your rather irrational and fantastical tale-telling here?

The kids are mostly unsupervised.

Bullshit. This may have been true when you were in school, but in my school, and any well-run school, kids are rarely if ever totally unsupervised. This is a major liability issue for the school, and you can get in serious trouble if you leave your kids alone. Especially if there's a fight while you're missing. You act as if teachers can just leave masses of kids alone for long perids of time, regularly. They can't, and if they do, they are taking risks with their career as well as kids' safety.

If your answer is, "take his beating like a good little boy, then tell the teacher afterward,"

Damn, but there aren't enough :rolleyes: s for people who twist other people's arguments with this sort of a vengeance. You are a dishonest debator and need to go fuck yourself.

And if you believe the scenario I've outlined above is anything like uncommon, then I submit to you that you weren't paying a whole lot of attention in high school.

I submit that I've spent far more time in secondary ed settings than you have, and your story is fiction. It's a classic tale of woe that is far from common. I'm sure tons of Dopers are going to now tell me that they WERE Wesley. Anecdote is not evidence. Bullying happens, but there are alternatives to violence in response. There are adults in every school and in most homes who give a shit and can act on bullying like this. Empower yourself, kid. Find an ally. Do not cower before bullies and do not turn into a violent, bitter person yourself because of them-- either reaction is giving them power to change you into a lesser person.

[Der Trihs]

I said when you hit someone, you should get consequences. THAT IS HOW THE REAL WORLD WORKS.No, it's not. In the real world, I'm allowed to defend myself, up to and including killing people if that's the only way to stop them, without consequences.

I am a teacher; I live in this environment every working day.And as a kid it always amazed me how detached from how things really are the teachers were.

I'm not going to buy into this idea that kids tell teachers they are being bullied and teachers don't care, and nothing is done, that the Wicked Coach is backing up the bully, that the kid has no recourse because no one in the WHOLE WIDE WORLD will help him, so he must do violence. Your disbelief won't stop it from happening.

This may have been true when you were in school, but in my school, and any well-run school, kids are rarely if ever totally unsupervised.There are a lot of badly run schools, and supervision only makes a difference if the adults supervising care. Or aren't actively rooting for the bullies.

It's a classic tale of woe that is far from common. You delude yourself. I wouldn't be surprised if it's happening right in front of you and you are simply refusing to see; I saw that often enough.

Bullying happens, but there are alternatives to violence in response. Sometimes there are, sometimes there are not.

[Guinastasia]

The ONLY potential problem I see is that either kid could CLAIM the other was bullying him/her first. That's the only sound reason I could see for said policy.

However, in the case of physical violence, protect yourself first, THEN tell the teacher.

[Caridwen]

They are called parents. You go to them to deal with the school when the school will not listen. Parents then need to be firm, controlled, and persistent.

Usually the parent's of kids that are bullies could give a flying fuck what their kid does. They didn't get to be bullies and troublemakers because their parent's have wonderful parenting skills.

[Odesio]

The only change in the above statement is that karate and judo might be seen as more offensive than defensive. The rest stands.

I guess my idea of defense doesn't mean I should sit back and take a pounding.

Marc

[Algher]

Usually the parent's of kids that are bullies could give a flying fuck what their kid does. They didn't get to be bullies and troublemakers because their parent's have wonderful parenting skills.

I was focusing on the parents of the kids getting bullied being involved. I have dealt with a bully in elementary school by being involved as a parent.

BTW - his parents were fine. They KNEW that their kid was a little shit. They told me when I first met them. They did NOT know that their kid was acting up yet again. This is not to say that their parenting skills are top notch, but they were very approachable.

[dgrdfd]

Shame on the OP for framing this as a gender issue when it's really an issue of how school officials deal with violence.

[Rubystreak]

No, it's not. In the real world, I'm allowed to defend myself, up to and including killing people if that's the only way to stop them, without consequences.

There are consequences, always. To deny that to make a rhetorical point is kind of ridiculous and I'm sure you know it.

And as a kid it always amazed me how detached from how things really are the teachers were.

I have intervened in many instances of bullying, and I know a lot of other teachers who have. You don't believe that, fine, but your bitterness is showing. Get picked on much? Still smarts, eh? Grow the fuck up.

I was 5'0" and 90lbs in high school. I never hit anyone or got hit, and it wasn't because I was so tough. The victim mentality? Doesn't fucking help anyone.

You delude yourself. I wouldn't be surprised if it's happening right in front of you and you are simply refusing to see; I saw that often enough.

Well, a hearty, sound fuck you to you and your mother, since you really have no right to cast aspersions on how I discharge my job because I don't think kids should hit each other. Ad hominem much, asshole? I see it, and I deal with it, all the time. The operative words here are DEAL WITH IT. There are adults who will help you deal with it. Your completely nihilistic attitude about this is wrong-headed and betrays your bias. Also, undermines your point in a big way.

[athelas]

Repeat

[athelas]

I have intervened in many instances of bullying, and I know a lot of other teachers who have. You don't believe that, fine, but your bitterness is showing. Get picked on much? Still smarts, eh? Grow the fuck up.

And there, ladies and gentlemen, is the compassionate reaction of the good active teacher who always intervenes on the side of the victim. The paragon of modern edumacation, right there.

[Rubystreak]

And there, ladies and gentlemen, is the compassionate reaction of the good active teacher who always intervenes on the side of the victim. The paragon of modern edumacation, right there.

Is Der Trihs a child? If he were 12, he'd get a much more compassionate response, not to mention immediate and effective action. However, he's just ACTING like a child. Fuck you too.

[athelas]

No thanks, I'm not into exhibitionism. It should be transparantly obvious that you are desparately and uninformedly trying to ignore the failure of the system of which you are a part. I wouldn't expect any teacher to admit the complete inability (or unwillingness) of teachers and administrators to adequately respond to bullying.

[Rubystreak]

No thanks, I'm not into exhibitionism.

Really? You did let your ass hang out.

It should be transparantly obvious that you are desparately and uninformedly trying to ignore the failure of the system of which you are a part.

You are desperately and uniformly trying to make your personal problem in high school into some massive problem, and paint all teachers as clueless and neglectful at best and downright negligent and mean at worst. How can I agree with that when I know it's just not true?

Bullying happens. Of course it does. It's part of the human condition. It can't be completely ended, consider that it also happens in adulthood. What I can't advocate is hitting people if there's any other way to deal with it. Your insistence that there's no other way is shrill and just plain wrong. It does no service to kids to give them that message. Violence is the LAST resort, not the best and only option. Can you possibly disagree with that? Would I be a laudable and honorable teacher if said otherwise?

I wouldn't expect any teacher to admit the complete inability (or unwillingness) of teachers and administrators to adequately respond to bullying.

Wow. Complete inability. But I'm desperately and uniformily claiming something? You people are incapable of forming a sensible argument if you must continue to resort to insults and hyperbole.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

[QUOTE=Rubystreak]Really? You did let your ass hang out.




Bullying happens. Of course it does. It's part of the human condition. It can't be completely ended, consider that it also happens in adulthood. What I can't advocate is hitting people if there's any other way to deal with it. Your insistence that there's no other way is shrill and just plain wrong. It does no service to kids to give them that message. Violence is the LAST resort, not the best and only option. Can you possibly disagree with that? Would I be a laudable and honorable teacher if said otherwise?


QUOTE]


Well, I had a teacher that dealt perfectly with my bullying situation. I had been quietly and physically bullied in sixth grade. I felt I had no one to turn to. I actually wrote my teacher an anonymous note saying that I was being bullied, pretending to be a classmate. When she got the letter she pulled me aside discreetly, talked to me. She talked to the girl in question and the situation stopped that day.

I actually learned that day that I had power in my pen and that I could turn to people for help. I did not resort to violence and I was able to deal with the situation.

Does everyone's situation end as happily as mine? No. But it is absurd to think it can't happen and that trying nonviolence and authority first is not the appropriate first step.

When my son was being picked on we took the same tack- nonviolence and working with administrators and the bullying stopped.

The child in the OP is in Kindergarten. Perhpas if we show no tolerance for violence when they are five, we'll have fewer bullies in high school. I could be wrong, but it is an experiment I'd like to see tried.

[Zoe]

Der Trihs: And as a kid it always amazed me how detached from how things really are the teachers were.

Teachers can seem much more detached than they are. We are usually trained to try to remain neutral and non-judgmental. You might be surprised how deeply our feelings run. It's not always easy to be the calm one during a real fire or when we have to settle an argument between students in the hallway before it escalates. How do you know when we've just been chewed out by our bosses?

You cannot read our minds and your perception of our actions may not be fully informed.

[athelas]

Fair enough, "complete inability of teachers and administrators" is not accurate - it should read "of some teachers and administrators." ITD, I'm glad that your experience was resolved smoothly, and I did have a teacher who took pains to nip bullying in the bud. However, it was a *single* teacher out of all of those in my elementary/middle school years. We must acknowledge that the education system generally incapable of dealing sanely with bullying. There are exception, but those are exceptions.

[Jayn_Newell]

Rubystreak, I applaud you for trying to protect the interests of your students. I wish my teachers had done something when I was being constantly harassed by my peers, but they didn't. I don't really want to be sitting here suggesting parents tell their kids to hit back. But not everyone is lucky enough to have teachers that genuinely care and are able to help them. I don't desire using violence as a solution. I wish that telling the teacher was good enough, or that if you ignored them they'd go away, but many people besides myself have had the experience where that just doesn't work.

Kids have killed themselves over schoolyard bullying. It is in their best interests to make it stop. If fighting back works, then I'm all for it. I do agree that it should be a last resort, I just don't want to see other kids going through the kind of hell I had to deal with--some of them don't make it out alive.

[Rubystreak]

I did have a teacher who took pains to nip bullying in the bud. However, it was a *single* teacher out of all of those in my elementary/middle school years.

I'm glad one of them helped you. I'm sure there were others who would have if you'd be able to talk to them. We're not mind readers and we do have, in some cases (mine, for example) 100+ kids/day to deal with. If you have a problem, tell someone. There are some clueless and mean teachers, but honestly, most of them would want to be able to intervene and make a kid's life better. We do choose this career because we love kids, for the most part. It sure ain't for the generous pay and benefits package.

We must acknowledge that the education system generally incapable of dealing sanely with bullying. There are exception, but those are exceptions.

No, I won't acknowledge that. I think maybe you had a bad experience. Everyone gets some crap in school. If yours was such a torment to you that you are still this bitter, then I have to think it was was worse than your average situation. YOU were the exception, not the one caring teacher.

ETA: Jayn, I'd never tell a kid to "ignore them and they'll go away." I hate bullying and I try to handle it swiftly and thoroughly. Maybe that's why so many kids come to me with it, and why I take exception to people telling me I don't care. I fucking care, and I do something about it. I can't believe I'm the exception in my profession.

[Quiddity Glomfuster]

Err, Quiddity, I think you've missed her point. The way I read it is that it is precisely because of the "do not hit back" rule that the Columbines occur in the first place.

I didn't miss that at all. Which is why I said what I did. First thing you teach kids is if some moron has a bad opinion of you and expresses it, that only shows he's a moron. You teach your kids to think little of bullies and idiots. You teach them they have no need to feel offended, because a name-calling or hitting idiot isn't worth their notice.

What was wrong with the Columbine boys was that they cared what others thought of them and had no self-esteem because they were picked on. They weren't taught to ignore idiots. If you fight back, you've let the moron get to you. This is not what you need to teach a kid.

I agree with whoever said you should teach a kid to defend against blows, but this shouldn't be needed at all. If your kids' schools still don't have anti-bullying programs, get off your asses and start them. Learn new and better ways of solving these problems. Quit being so bloody lazy and figuring teaching your little Rambo to 'fight back' is the acceptable way to civilize a kid. If you need to tackle the whole school board, do it, dammit!

WTF is wrong with you people? I stand by my statement; you folks have one hell of a violent take on life. It's shocking to me. I'm also shocked to find I agree with Rubystreak, who fought me tooth and nail for the right to insult people on SDMB.

[storyteller0910]

And there, ladies and gentlemen, is the compassionate reaction of the good active teacher who always intervenes on the side of the victim. The paragon of modern edumacation, right there.

That's what I was thinking.

Ruby, you may help yourself to your delusions. You're a bit of a joke, actually. You genuinely believe that what I wrote is fiction? That a boy has never attacked another boy, in school, outside of the view of adults, while others gleefully cheer on the fight? That authority figures have never looked with contempt on kids (mostly boys) who won't "stand up for themselves" by fighting back? You believe this doesn't happen? If you do, then I am speechless, as you must be the single most oblivious educator of all time. Is there an award or something?

We all believe that you have intervened in cases of bullying. We all believe that other teachers have. We are telling you that many teachers do not. You don't believe that, fine, but your obliviousness is showing.

None of us is arguing that hitting should be the first resort, or the second, or the third. But there are times when immediate adult intervention - for whatever reason - is not forthcoming. When conflict is coming, and running away or firing back with a clever quip are not options. You mocked my story very nicely, but never answered my question: what does the creative, competent person do in such a situation? I await your wisdom.

Oh, and you might consider in the future not telling others that anecdotes are not evidence when your entire argument stems from your eight whole years of experience working with children. Eight whole years. Wow.

[Der Trihs]

We do choose this career because we love kids, for the most part. It sure ain't for the generous pay and benefits package.How about for the opportunity to torment and lord it over children ? "There were certain teachers who would hurt the children in any way they could" and all that.

I think maybe you had a bad experience. Everyone gets some crap in school. If yours was such a torment to you that you are still this bitter, then I have to think it was was worse than your average situation. YOU were the exception, not the one caring teacher.Well, hello Pollyanna. You know, for something that's such an exception, it's amazing how many people talk about how bullies made their life hell as a child.

[storyteller0910]

Quit being so bloody lazy and figuring teaching your little Rambo to 'fight back' is the acceptable way to civilize a kid. If you need to tackle the whole school board, do it, dammit! WTF is wrong with you people? I stand by my statement; you folks have one hell of a violent take on life.

Speaking of twisting words...

I, at least, do not have a violent take on life. I haven't been in a physical fight since I was a junior in high school. I was in exactly two in high school; in both cases I was attacked under circumstances where I felt defending myself (using force) was necessary. Both were brief, bloodless, and relatively mild.

I loathe violence. I think it's dreadful. But I think that, once in a very, very great while, it is sometimes needed. This is the lesson I'd have my kids learn; can you see no distinction between that and raising "Rambo?"

[Rubystreak]

That's what I was thinking.

That wasn't thinking. That was your knee, jerking.

Ruby, you may help yourself to your delusions.

Which are what, exactly? That hitting people is wrong to teach kids? That there are better ways to handle harassment? Please, do enumerate my delusions. Yours are all over the place. You obviously are holding onto things that happened to you in high school and are universalizing your experience. It's by no means the norm.

You're a bit of a joke, actually

No, you are, but what am I? :rolleyes:

You genuinely believe that what I wrote is fiction?

Why, did it happen to you? Are you still not over it? Do you think it gives you the right to advocate violence, or insult how I do my job, or tar the entire teaching profession, just because of your inability to handle bullying? I mean, OK, if it happened to you, own it. Then we can have a real conversation. Otherwise, it's just a story you made up to win a point on the internet.

That a boy has never attacked another boy, in school, outside of the view of adults, while others gleefully cheer on the fight?

That you couldn't do anything but violence to deal with it? That I don't believe.

That authority figures have never looked with contempt on kids (mostly boys) who won't "stand up for themselves" by fighting back? You believe this doesn't happen? If you do, then I am speechless, as you must be the single most oblivious educator of all time. Is there an award or something?

There are bad and clueless teachers and administrators. Bad parents. Mean kids. It's the fucking world, kid. Of course I believe it. What I don't believe is that any adult should tell kids that they should have to hit other kids to solve their problems. You yourself are saying that you wouldn't stand up for yourself. Why do you think the only way you could do that was with violence? Isn't violence the problem you are railing against, yet teachers and administrators should have condoned it if you did it? Do you see a contradiction here?

We all believe that you have intervened in cases of bullying. We all believe that other teachers have. We are telling you that many teachers do not. You don't believe that, fine, but your obliviousness is showing.

I bet many of them don't know it's happening and aren't deliberately ignoring it. I guarantee that very few of them WANT kids to get bullied, or wouldn't help a kid if they knew he was being bullied. I also don't believe that a kid couldn't find an adult in the entire school who could intervene and end the problem.

None of us is arguing that hitting should be the first resort, or the second, or the third. But there are times when immediate adult intervention - for whatever reason - is not forthcoming. When conflict is coming, and running away or firing back with a clever quip are not options. You mocked my story very nicely, but never answered my question: what does the creative, competent person do in such a situation? I await your wisdom.

Defend yourself. How many times did I say that? Do it. Be prepared for whatever consequences are incurred, which would depend on what you chose to do and how it went. And find someone to help you ASAP. What else can I possibly say beyond that?

Oh, and you might consider in the future not telling others that anecdotes are not evidence when your entire argument stems from your eight whole years of experience working with children. Eight whole years. Wow.

I'm not depending on a fictionalized version that might or not be my life. I'm telling you, I deal with kids every day. I see all the shit you're talking about. I will not tell kids to hit other kids. I will not admit that most teachers ignore bullying or don't give a damn, or that schools are catastrophically failing to deal with bullying. Sorry, that's not anecdote, that's experience.

[storyteller0910]

You know what, Ruby? I'd like to take a step back, if it's not too late for that. I'm saying things to you that I have no business saying; I know absolutely jack shit about you and your work and have no right to offer criticism of it, either in the way that I have been or really even at all. Please accept my very sincere apology.

--------------

Can I start again? First, this: little Wesley is 14-year-old me, Medical Sciences Learning Center Class of '95. My story is no more fictional than yours. I hit back. I did so because at the time, I had a very strong instinctive sense that if I did not, I was going to get hurt, maybe badly. I hit back because in that moment, I genuinely saw no other options. Couldn't run. Couldn't appeal to an authority figure. I wasn't some psychotic Rambo wanna-be. I was a skinny nerd who spent most of his afterschool time in the theatre. But I worked construction on weekends, so I was stronger than my bully thought I would be. He hit me, I hit him back. I don't apologize for it. I saw kids get pretty busted up, pretty quickly. It doesn't require the teacher to go to Fiji for two weeks; it only takes two minutes while the teacher is peeing for somebody to get a broken nose (I am Italian, so anything that made my nose even less appealing to look at was going to be a major problem for me). So I hit back, and we both walked away uninjured.

Am I being dramatic? Maybe. He probably wouldn't have hurt me for realsies. But at that moment, I thought he was going to. I geuninely think the times when retalitory violence is warranted are exceedingly rare; some people may make it through their entire school career and never encounter a situation where it is. But I don't think it should be taken off the table, not completely.

Here's the thing. You say this:


Defend yourself. How many times did I say that? Do it. Be prepared for whatever consequences are incurred, which would depend on what you chose to do and how it went. And find someone to help you ASAP. What else can I possibly say beyond that?


Which actually I agree with. My problem is with policies that don't allow for the second half of your fourth sentence - assigning consequences based on exactly who did what and why and how it went. Some of what are termed Zero Tolerance policies don't allow for nuanced assessment of a situation, and distribution of consequences in a way that accurately represents what happened; they call for Punishment X in response to Action Y, which seems crude and likely to make kids feel (as so many in this thread do) that the authority figures aren't interested in fairness.

Does that make sense?

[Rubystreak]

You know what, Ruby? I'd like to take a step back, if it's not too late for that. I'm saying things to you that I have no business saying; I know absolutely jack shit about you and your work and have no right to offer criticism of it, either in the way that I have been or really even at all. Please accept my very sincere apology.

And you have mine if I made you feel bad. I take all this bullying very seriously and I wish I could have helped you, and I would have if I was your teacher. It does sound like you had not much choice but to do the best you could in that situation.

What you are saying is not the same as what other posters were saying about what to tell kids. I think adults have to tell their kids that violence isn't OK and to try to find another way. If you have to hit, (wo)man up to the consequences. You chose to punch that kid, and I bet you dealt with your punishment from the school, if there was any. The OP was saying his niece should be able to hit other kids and not get punished. That is not a feasible policy for school, esp. for an admitted repeat offender like the OP's niece.

Which actually I agree with. My problem is with policies that don't allow for the second half of your fourth sentence - assigning consequences based on exactly who did what and why and how it went. Some of what are termed Zero Tolerance policies don't allow for nuanced assessment of a situation, and distribution of consequences in a way that accurately represents what happened; they call for Punishment X in response to Action Y, which seems crude and likely to make kids feel (as so many in this thread do) that the authority figures aren't interested in fairness.

Does that make sense?

It does, but I don't think the zero tolerance policies are a chart that has a rigid assignment of what the punishment is. I'm sure some administrators don't listen and some kids get harsher or milder punishments than they deserve. But overall, it's a dynamic process with lots of talking to lots of people before the consequence is meted out, esp. when suspensions are involved. I have heard kids complain about bullying and it not getting noticed, but rarely that the victim took action and was unjustly punished.

I don't know what your outcome was in this situation. What did happen? And how long ago was this? I'd like to think that consciousness has been raised on this issue and that teachers are more aware and proactive than they were when I was a kid.

[storyteller0910]

And you have mine if I made you feel bad.

Cool. But let's make sure we keep insulting each other here and there so this doesn't end up in that debate forum or some such.


What you are saying is not the same as what other posters were saying about what to tell kids. I think adults have to tell their kids that violence isn't OK and to try to find another way. If you have to hit, (wo)man up to the consequences. You chose to punch that kid, and I bet you dealt with your punishment from the school, if there was any. The OP was saying his niece should be able to hit other kids and not get punished. That is not a feasible policy for school, esp. for an admitted repeat offender like the OP's niece.


Well... OK. I'm not sure we really disagree about anything here. I agree with you. There are consequences to everything. Hell, I came into this thread and got nasty and now, as a consequence, I feel guilty (like I said, I'm Italian, so it's a lot of talking without thinking, guilt, and then pasta). But what the consequences should be, about that we maybe might disagree. A little girl hits back once, to get the boy who hit her to back away, then runs away? Maybe her punishment should be a stern reminder that hitting isn't good except in the most extreme situations. Little girl uses the fact that the boy punched her arm to kick him in the nads and break his nose? Maybe that's a different situation.


It does, but I don't think the zero tolerance policies are a chart that has a rigid assignment of what the punishment is. I'm sure some administrators don't listen and some kids get harsher or milder punishments than they deserve. But overall, it's a dynamic process with lots of talking to lots of people before the consequence is meted out, esp. when suspensions are involved. I have heard kids complain about bullying and it not getting noticed, but rarely that the victim took action and was unjustly punished.


Well, your school district must be very different from my wife's. In her school, their ZT policy involves exactly what you mention in the first sentence above: a chart, with specific punishments attached to specific actions and no room for interpretation, discussion, or judgment. If we can agree that this is a bad thing, then we really have nothing left about which to argue.


I don't know what your outcome was in this situation. What did happen? And how long ago was this? I'd like to think that consciousness has been raised on this issue and that teachers are more aware and proactive than they were when I was a kid.

Well, let's see. It was... woof. 15 years ago, give or take. In the particular case I mention, I was not punished at all (neither was the instigator, who by the way when I saw him at our 10 year reunion talked to me like I had been his best friend in high school). The teacher on duty in that case was in fact the football coach, and had a very "boys will be boys" attitude about the whole thing; I think he thought it was character-building that we resolved our differences "like men," or whatever. Kind of a dick, that guy.

[SnakesCatLady]

Just reading this thread has made me sick to my stomach. Not because of the differing opinions, but because of the memories it brought back. Memories of being in the 7th grade and trying to get in trouble in school, so I would get held for after school detention. If I was in detention I had to walk the 7 miles home and hope like hell I made it before my mom got home from work. But it meant I didn't have to ride the bus knowing I was going to get my ass beat when I got off the bus. I made good grades - a lot of the other kids didn't like me. My mother was a lot like some of the posters in this thread - she believed I should never hit back. I still have a ripped earlobe where one girl ripped out my earrings because she wanted them.

This did not occur in school - it was after school while everyone's parents were at work.

Finally, a classmate of mine came and had a talk with my mother. He told her flat out that as long as I didn't make any attempt to defend myself - per her orders - and everyone knew I wasn't allowed to defend myself - I was going to get beaten up on a regular basis. Anyone who wanted to look tough could whip my ass with no fear of consequences. Talk to their parents? It is to laugh. The reactions varied from total disbelief (my baby would never hit anyone - your child is a liar and trying to get my baby in trouble. No, I don't know how she got that black eye and I don't care. My baby didn't do it and you can't prove she did) to a couple of moms offering to beat the shit out of my mother if she got their kid in trouble.

Mom finally told me I could defend myself. The classmate gave me a few pointers. The next time I rode the bus home I was jumped as usual - but I fought back. I'm not going to say I beat anyone's ass, but it wasn't an easy victory anymore. The fun had gone out of it for the bullies when I started back - why, they might actually suffer some pain! The daily ass-kickings stopped, and I only had to fight a few more times before it ended completely.

I don't think teaching that violence is the best choice is the right idea - and I don't think anyone is advocating that. But kids aren't around adults all the time, and bullies know how to cover their asses. Unless you want to live in fear as I did (and still remember) sometimes you have to convince the bully you are not an easy target for their games.

[Caridwen]

Luckily I never had a problem with bullies and my son didn't. I feel so sorry for kids that do, and I think if I couldn't get it resolved I'd homeschool or something. Is it because classroom sizes are so much bigger that things don't get noticed?

My sister's son was in a situation in second grade where I wouldn't call the other kid a bully but just bad and sort of bratty. The first time the kid hit my nephew and my nephew hit him back and they went to the office and got the no hitting speech, and tell the teacher, yadda yadda. My sister went for a meeting and the other parents didn't show up.

They told my nephew (who isn't shy or quiet) not to hit back but tell the teacher. He told the teacher, another meeting and another no-show by the parents.
Apparently it still went on, usually in the boys bathroom and my sister only found out because another little boy told his mother and she told my sister. For whatever reason that kids have he didn't want to tell the teacher again. Maybe because nothing got resolved.

Another meeting where the parents don't show up. After that my sister reluctantly told my nephew that if the kid hit him again, to hit him back. And she told the teacher she said that. And the kid knew that. If he got suspended, so be it.

Nothing ever came of it I think because the kid knew that my nephew wasn't going to be his punching bag. I think he went on to smack some other kid around according to my sister. It's a small town and people have really tried to get along with this kid. They invite him to parties but he's just too bad. I feel for the kid because he has problems.

I think you have to do everything you can to teach kids that fighting isn't the answer. To a point. When it gets to the point where the child doesn't want to go to school or their life is miserable, you act accordingly.

[Rubystreak]

Cool. But let's make sure we keep insulting each other here and there so this doesn't end up in that debate forum or some such.

:D

Hell, I came into this thread and got nasty and now, as a consequence, I feel guilty (like I said, I'm Italian, so it's a lot of talking without thinking, guilt, and then pasta).

I'm half Italian, so I feel half guilty. No halfway on the pasta, though.

But what the consequences should be, about that we maybe might disagree. A little girl hits back once, to get the boy who hit her to back away, then runs away? Maybe her punishment should be a stern reminder that hitting isn't good except in the most extreme situations. Little girl uses the fact that the boy punched her arm to kick him in the nads and break his nose? Maybe that's a different situation.

My feeling is, a kid who gets in fights often warrants some more investigation and intervention. Either she is being chronically bullied or she is into getting involved in shit and is a hitter. It's not clear from the OP what the situation is, but as you and others have pointed out, kids who hit back early and often don't stay victims of bullies for very long. Thus, the OP gets my :dubious: for his allegations that the niece is 100% innocent. That is rarely the case with kids who fight a lot.

Well, your school district must be very different from my wife's. In her school, their ZT policy involves exactly what you mention in the first sentence above: a chart, with specific punishments attached to specific actions and no room for interpretation, discussion, or judgment. If we can agree that this is a bad thing, then we really have nothing left about which to argue.

Using charts to assess people's needs is wrong. We agree. There is a sort of SOP with these things in a general sense, but they are very nonspecific and I know that context is important. If a kid is caught with a weapon, it's an automatic 5 days out of school suspension-- something like that is established and not negotiable. Situations like yours, esp. if there were witnesses, I don't know how that would go.

Well, let's see. It was... woof. 15 years ago, give or take.

And this is important, because I think our generation and earlier had it harder because of this "boys will be boys" or "toughen up, kid" attitude towards bullying. I know it does still happen. When it does, it's wrong. Most of the teachers I know don't think that way, though I have known some. I do know that gym teachers in particular have had their consciousness raised because that was a setting that lent itself to lots of bad behavior.

[H3Knuckles]

Hi! Just wanted to add my two cents.

I'm not sure. I suppose it's not gender-specific. My sister was sure pissed, though. She's as "take no shit" as my niece (which is where my niece got it, I imagine).

Off the top of my head, I'd bet money that Little Nemo is right and it's more of a "kids can't respond to aggression with violence" concept rather than a "girls can't hit boys back" motive.

Doesn't make it any less wrong, imo. Did the boy receive any punishment for hitting her? This is actually a very important point. This is the flaw in how school's discipline children that leads to the major acts of violence from outsider kids we've been seeing more and more. Any time they try to stop the kids harrassing them, no matter how many times it's repeated itself, the harrassers generally get a slap on the wrist, and the peers consider the child a "tattle-tale." If the child takes matters into their own hands, it's met with severe reprimands, and maybe the harrasser is also punished. It leads to meltdowns more often than we'd like to admit.
Fortunately these meltdowns usually take the form of the child either having a crying fit or beating the crap out of the bullies (come what may) than it does shootings. But it's a bad way to deal with the situation. If there's one thing public schools should have taken away from incidents like Columbine is that they need to deal with abuse amongst students with a more hands-on approach and not wave it off as "that'll never happen here, after all, it only happened there because they missed all those warning signs!"
I'm the first person to say that there's been a growing trend to mollycoddle kids and treat them precious, entitled little toys to show off to your friends. That's a dramatic exagerration, but the point holds. This is different, however; we have a fundamentally inappropriate mentality for dealing with these situations.

I'm speaking from personal experience here. I'm a nerd, and I was "the fat kid" in school, and was therefor a near-constant target of insults and harrassment by my classmates and upper-classmen. Let's just say that every year in junior high I got into at least one fight. In highschool I got into a couple scuffles (even against kids who would've kicked my ass if the fight had been allowed to continue), until one day I slugged a kid a couple times to prevent him from trying to humiliate me in front of the class room.
The school was going to do the usual song and dance, until his parents called and raised a fuss (he probably had told them a very one-sided version of my student history) and since we live in a wealthy area where ~1-in-5 students has a lawyer for a parent they over-reacted. They suspended me for a few days, made me transfer to a different classroom, and had me get a psych assessment. Now I was already dealing with depression, and after the school found out about that (plus this was the year after Columbine), they treated me with kid gloves, but still never really tried to correct the root problem.

We all laugh when Ralphie beats up Scott Fargus in A Christmas Story. But imagine it's happening on school grounds, and the school keeps dismissing matters until Ralphie flips out, then harshly punishes him and gives Scott a single detention. Does this really sound alright? :dubious:

[Gorgonzola]

I think that sometimes when teachers appear to be on the side of the little nasties at school, it's got to do with the fact that they're trying very hard to see all of the kids as human beings with potential -- even if they know deep down in side that this one and that one have cold black hearts. (And doesn't it sound horrible to think of children, any children, as having cold black hearts?) It's part of the job of a teacher, to maintain and instil hope -- to my way of thinking, the toughest part of the job, because there is so little time and status placed upon it in the hierarchy of day-to-day teaching activities. Which is why, as so many people are describing, schools feed it as a pretty thin gruel to kids who don't suck greedily at the trough.

Some schools get caught up in some truly ridiculous policies trying to save themselves time and effort or avoid legal back-and-forthing. One I recall at our daughter's school used to involve a rule against excluding other children. While this was no doubt intended to make it more difficult for less socially apt kids to be left with no one to play with, aggressive sorts quickly tuned in to the fact that they could be irritating or rude or nasty or unpleasant to other children, and if the other children attempted to avoid them in any way as a result, the "no excluding!" rule would prevent natural consequences from taking place. :rolleyes:

At our house, we honestly think that a lot of education should go on at home, and that includes a lot of coaching on the vagaries of social interaction, as well as checking to make sure that the teacher is actually interpreting lesson material correctly. If you find that there are school-induced or teacher-induced errors that are giving your child grief, you have two choices: coach your child regarding an appropriate response and see how it comes out, or approach the teacher and/or principal to voice your concern. We have used both methods at different times, and sometimes both at the same time. It all depends on the situation. For example, when our daughter was subjected to physical violence (in response to mouthing someone off on the playground), we used both methods -- coaching and approaching. When we discovered the other day that the teacher had taught the wrong answer using erroneous logic in a probability lesson, we chose to simply coach our child on the correct method and why the teacher's had been incorrect. The bottom line is that she's our daughter, not the school's, and sometimes she (our daughter) would also prefer that a problem be handled in a certain way, too -- and since she's the one spending all her school days there, she gets input. It can all take up a lot of time and energy, but I don't recall getting into parenting because I wanted to put my feet up more.

Any so-called disciplinary action that treats the instigator and the responder/retaliator in the same manner is at best intellectually lazy, and at worst an acknowledgment of a complete inability to make judgments regarding right and wrong. I see this go on in the adult world, too -- say, where an accusation is made and wholly cleared, but the accuser suffers no consequence for malice. It's injustice, plain and simple, and I don't see much reason in calling it anything else.

[1010011010]

I had a pretty surreal experience in 4th grade that I hadn't thought about until I read this thread. Details are still coming back as I write this.

Background: The school divided the grades into two groups, and subdivided the halves into classes as necessary to have less than the legal student/teacher limit. I think there were three classes per half as I went through. The timing of each half's recess and lunch were staggered. Otherwise there were no differences as far as I know.

Anyway. I'm screwing around at recess one day when Mr Wooten, the gym teacher, calls me over, hands me off to another teacher who escorts me to see the Principal (who was later caught up in a scandal over falsifying attendance records to increase school funding, but that's neither here nor there).

As it was told to me, Today I'd gone too far. My response to this was something along the lines of "wha, who?" So she's brought in a girl named Colleen (whom I recognized by I don't believe I ever interacted with her in any way before or after this event) and told some story about me kicking her coming down the slide (which, incidentally was a truly spectacular slide. It was about 7feet tall and all metal polished to high sheen by decades' worth of sliding. VERY UNSAFE. You'd shoot off the end of it. Last time I drove by I noticed they'd taken out the old playground equipment and put in one of those wooden monstrosities.) To this I said something to the effect that I don't know who she was, but if I did kick her on the slide, it was an accident and I was sorry. The end?

Not so much. The Principal didn't buy this because, it was explained to me, I'd apparently been tormenting young Colleen for a while now, further there was a Pattern of Behavior. Thus began a parade of various kids I didn't know telling me about things I'd apparently done to tease and bully them. I didn't really have a way to comprehend or process this much less the principal's demands that I explain myself each time. I asked if I could sit down. Denied. I began to feel sick and said so, she slammed a trashcan down and told me to puke in that if I had to. That moment is, I believe, when I lost my childlike trust of adults. I was 8.

And then something weird happened. The little sister of a friend of mine who lives down the street came in. Someone I knew! I remembered getting a ride home one day with her because I had to walk all the way to the other end of the school because that's where the other half's classes were held. At which point that it clicked for me that the reason I didn't recognize this parade of kids is because they're weren't from my half. There was no way for me to have done anything those kids had been saying. And that moment is when I lost my childlike respect for the authority of adults. She told a story about how I'd pushed her around and how I'd taunt her dog whenever I went by her house. Then it was demanded that I explain why I was "tormenting" this girl's dog or did I not remember this one, either.

I explained that Jack was her brother's dog, not hers... and while I freely admitted that the dog barked at me whenever I went by their yard and that I barked back (yeah, well... hey, I was young), the dog and I got along quite well, thank you, when it wasn't chained to a tree. Further, she wasn't in my class. Her class was on the other end of the school. I never saw her at all on a normal school day.

I don't know if it clicked for the principal too at that point or what. But the interview ended and the school day was pretty much over. I didn't tell my parents about it. They never asked me about it. AFAIK, the principal didn't tell them about it. It was late in the school year and 5th grade was at a completely different school across town. Nothing ever came of it to my knowledge. I scrupulously took notice of, and avoided, Colleen for the rest of the school year. Didn't see her again.

I still can't figure out what was going on. I know the theory I came up with at the time was that Colleen had enlisted her cohorts from the other half in a conspiracy against me. That seems like an awful lot of planning for 8 year olds now. And I never could figure out why they'd bother.

Anyway.
I've also been told a story about when I was four and being accosted by the neighborhood bully (who, had the better part of a decade and about 100 pound on me) having my brothers urging from the sidelines to punch him in the nose. Reportedly I jumped up (as in, I had to jump to reach that high) and gave him a bloody nose.
That would be the only fight I've ever been in, and I don't remember it.

Otherwise, people pretty much left me alone throughout school on that front. I had two incidents outside of school. One ended up in my parents calling the cops and going to non-judicial binding arbitration with the kid. One ended up fizzling out when the would-be hero realized that "me and all of my fag friends" in the car at the time included the very big boyfriend of of a girl I knew glowering from the back seat. Said girl told me a couple years later that a lot of the bullying set left me alone because they were scared of me. I weighed 135 pounds in high school and took unnecessary science classes because I liked them. Dork, yes. Weird, yes. Scary?

[Rubystreak]

How about for the opportunity to torment and lord it over children ? "There were certain teachers who would hurt the children in any way they could" and all that.

Don't worry about those teachers. It's well known, when they get home at night their fat and psychopathic wives will thrash them within inches of their lives.







Wrong! Do it again! If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any puddig! How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?!?

[Der Trihs]

Eh, Rubystreak, you're just another brick in the wall. ;)

[Mister Rik]

Wow, this has gone to three pages! Apologies for not getting back here sooner - I pulled an 11 hour shift at work today and just got home. Obviously, with so many replies since my last post I can't respond to everything point by point, so here are the highlights.

I went totally nonviolent when I was 8 or 9 in 3rd grade and stuck with it until I was 15 in Junior High School. Would not fight back, would not defend myself physically. I'd get furious, defend myself verbally, and would indeed go and tell the authority figures if I were being assaulted or harassed.
I was also nonviolent, and still am. In fact, I'm turning 41 next month and to this very day I've never been in an actual "fight" - I've never even thrown a punch. The rest of your points ... that could have been me writing all that.

1) Not every authority figure, nor even most authority figures, take these reports seriously.
Exactly. You know what response I heard most often when I tried to report bullying? "Well then stay away from <bully's name here>" Right. On the playground, the bully can follow me everywhere I go, so unless I wanted to spend my entire recess hanging around the playground monitor instead of, oh, playing, there was no way to physically "stay away" from the bullies.

I was looking through my old grade school report cards not long ago, and noticed one teacher's comment in the "Needs work on:" section: "Richard is quite the tattletale!"

I was also not helped by a mom who assured me that the only reason other kids picked on me was that they were just jealous that I was so smart. My dad tried to teach me to defend myself (he was a brawler himself back when he was in school), but for some reason I was always more afraid of his self-defense lessons than the bullies, so I didn't really learn anything.

Girls can bully just as well as boys (often with more nuance), and the victims can be of either gender.
Very true. Junior high school was hell for me, and the girls were worse than the boys.

Then the OP goes on to compare this to domestic abuse
Technically, I was quoting my sister, but I agree with her in principle. Part of the issue my sister may have is that my older niece (now almost 9) was molested by an older boy when she was in kindergarten, and my sister wants to make sure nothing even resembling that happens to her youngest daughter.

I can't believe I'm the exception in my profession.
You would have been back when I was in school. I had grade school teachers who, whether they intended it or not, actually encouraged bullying. One day in fifth grade, I was absentmindedly drumming my fingers on my desk shortly before recess. Mrs. Snitzler's response to this was not to ask me to stop but instead make me continue drumming my fingers and make the entire class miss five minutes of recess listening to me drum my fingers. In other words, an asinine attempt by my teacher to use peer pressure to ensure I didn't do anything that irritated her. Naturally, I got the crap kicked out of me and that tree bark stuff they use as a playground cushion stuffed into my underwear at recess because I had made the other kids miss those five minutes.

Also, I don't believe I claimed that my niece was 100% innocent. Anyway, I don't know if hers was a case of bullying or not. I'll concede that perhaps it was a case of horseplay that simply got out of hand. And yeah, it shouldn't be a gender issue (I'll blame my sister. She started it! :D )

Another thought I've had is that maybe I'm seeing one side effect of having kids later in life (as is happening more often these days). My sister and I did kindergarten in 1973 and 1971, respectively, while my niece is doing it more than 30 years later. That's a lot of time for things to change. We only have our own experience with "what school is like" to draw on, and "what school is like" now is considerably different from what it was then.

[Quiddity Glomfuster]

Um. Let's not talk about how it was 26 years ago. That was then. This is now. School boards are supposedly being proactive in bringing in anti-bullying programs. If they haven't yet stepped up to the plate, then parents need to get busy.

We are supposed to be learning from the past as we move forward and rectifying the mistakes of the past. If nobody ever sheds this frontier mentality, we're doomed.

Then again, psychologists talking about Cho were mentioning that some people equate violence with power with masculinity. I was hoping it wasn't true, but it probably is.

[Quiddity Glomfuster]

Speaking of twisting words...

I, at least, do not have a violent take on life. I haven't been in a physical fight since I was a junior in high school. I was in exactly two in high school; in both cases I was attacked under circumstances where I felt defending myself (using force) was necessary. Both were brief, bloodless, and relatively mild.

I loathe violence. I think it's dreadful. But I think that, once in a very, very great while, it is sometimes needed. This is the lesson I'd have my kids learn; can you see no distinction between that and raising "Rambo?"
I wasn't addressing you particularly; rather the 'learn to beat up people - yeah, that'll end violence' types. Something you said triggered me to answer is all.

[Clothahump]

My sister tells me that my redheaded niece, who is in kindergarten, got sent to the Principal's office again. For fighting! It seems that a boy at school smacked her in the face, and so she went upside his head (and must have made the boy cry, from the sound of it). She takes no shit. "Good for her!" I say. "Good for her!" my sister says.

But the Principal doesn't say that, nosirree Bob. No, the Principal (male or female, I don't know) explained to my niece and my sister that just because a boy hits her, she doesn't have the right to hit him back. That's right, a girl is not allowed to defend herself. As my sister put it (sarcastically, natch), "Sure, let's program these girls properly, so that when they're teenagers and adults and their boyfriends start slapping them around, they'll know to just put up with it!"

The Principal told my sister that if this kind of thing happens again, she'll have to suspend my niece from school. "Well," said my sister, "If that happens then I guess I'll just get to spend some quality time at home with my daughter."

WRONG ANSWER!!!!


The correct response is to tell the principal that her daughter will continue to defend herself against physical assaults and if any action is taken against her for doing so, the cops will be involved and you will file charges against the principal as an accessory to the assault.

Your sister should not blindly accept idiocy like that from the school system. When her daughter is in their care, THEY are responsible for her safety. And if she is assaulted by another student, it is THEIR problem to deal with. And the operative term is deal with, not avoid through asinine zero tolerance bullshit.

[Quiddity Glomfuster]

WRONG ANSWER!!!!


The correct response is to tell the principal that her daughter will continue to defend herself against physical assaults and if any action is taken against her for doing so, the cops will be involved and you will file charges against the principal as an accessory to the assault.

Your sister should not blindly accept idiocy like that from the school system. When her daughter is in their care, THEY are responsible for her safety. And if she is assaulted by another student, it is THEIR problem to deal with. And the operative term is deal with, not avoid through asinine zero tolerance bullshit.
WRONG ANSWER!!!!

The correct response is to tell the principal that you expect that the school institute an anti-bullying program and that she will help research and present it, if necessary.

[Quiddity Glomfuster]

http://www.connectforkids.org/node/614

[Gorgonzola]

Our daughter's school uses the Bully Busters (http://www.researchpress.com/product/item/5192/) approach. We are seeing good results and follow-through; last week our daughter reported some typical behaviour from the class bully, and the class spent 45 minutes discussing it in a collaborative fashion.

Though I don't know whether this is a part of the Bully Busters program or not, I have discovered through classroom volunteering that the principal actively promotes positive leadership activities, such as having children in the upper classes get on the PA in the morning to announce that they would be leading games on the playground at recess, and inviting the lower classes specifically to meet them at a certain spot and join in.

[Quiddity Glomfuster]

Our daughter's school uses the Bully Busters (http://www.researchpress.com/product/item/5192/) approach. We are seeing good results and follow-through; last week our daughter reported some typical behaviour from the class bully, and the class spent 45 minutes discussing it in a collaborative fashion.

Though I don't know whether this is a part of the Bully Busters program or not, I have discovered through classroom volunteering that the principal actively promotes positive leadership activities, such as having children in the upper classes get on the PA in the morning to announce that they would be leading games on the playground at recess, and inviting the lower classes specifically to meet them at a certain spot and join in.
Imagine that! Taking proactive and positive measures to end a problem! Wholda thunkit?





Someone explain to me why people need to be told these things.

[Sarahfeena]

I don't think people do need to be told these things.

All schools should try to figure out ways to solve these problems on a long-term, ongoing basis. And I am not necessarily opposed to the typical rule that all people involved in a fight get punished, no matter who started it. My only thought about defending oneself is that sometimes some problems need more immediate solutions, and when it comes to getting hit, I would not be opposed to my kid defending him or herself in kind if need be.

[Rubystreak]

WRONG ANSWER!!!!


Writing it real big doesn't make it any more true, just more annoying.

The correct response is to tell the principal that her daughter will continue to defend herself against physical assaults and if any action is taken against her for doing so, the cops will be involved and you will file charges against the principal as an accessory to the assault.

You're assuming the kid WAS defending herself. That hasn't been established except through hearsay-- a parent, declaring her kid a victim and the other kid a bully, even though her kid has a history of fighting. Maybe it was the other kid who was being bullied. Hard to trust the word of a 5 year old, especially a chronic hitter like the OP's niece.

Your sister should not blindly accept idiocy like that from the school system.

No, she should teach her kid not to hit other kids. If she has a bully that's bothering her, and she hits back the first time, OK. Then she can tell her mom and her teacher what's going on and get it resolved. I can't see getting in physical fights over and over with the same kid as being acceptable behavior for a 5 year old. Can you?

When her daughter is in their care, THEY are responsible for her safety. And if she is assaulted by another student, it is THEIR problem to deal with. And the operative term is deal with, not avoid through asinine zero tolerance bullshit.

They are also responsibly for the safety of the other kid, who is automatically painted as the villainous girl-beating boy antagonist here. I don't buy it.

One does get so fucking sick of parents who cannot imagine that their kid ever does anything wrong. The extent some people will go to, the level of denial, is astonishing. Parents can't admit their child misbehaved because it would reflect on them, they might have to administer discipline or heavens forbid, admit they might have raised a kid who isn't perfect.

I had a kid commit plagiarism recently-- she copied a Robert Frost poem and handed it in as an original work. Too bad for her I know that poem by heart. When I called her mother, the mother denied that her daughter could have committed plagiarism on purpose. "It was an accident! She didn't mean to do it!" Umm, how do you copy a poem word for word that was written by a famous poet and then hand it in with your name on it by accident?!? But this woman insisted it was so, and went so far as to say, "How could she have copied that poem? We don't have any books in this house!" :smack: It's unbelievable, the denial.

[Mister Rik]

Hard to trust the word of a 5 year old, especially a chronic hitter like the OP's niece.

<snip>

I can't see getting in physical fights over and over with the same kid as being acceptable behavior for a 5 year old. Can you?

<snip>

One does get so fucking sick of parents who cannot imagine that their kid ever does anything wrong.
(bolding mine)

Where are you reading all this in my posts? My sister is the first to admit that her daughter is a rambunctious little girl with an attitude. My sister has made it perfectly clear to her daughter that she is not allowed to start shit with other kids, and that she will be punished if she does (and my sister follows through on this). But in this particular instance, there was apparently sufficient evidence that it was the boy who started the shit, or at least hit first, and that is the only reason for my sister's position on the matter.

[Thudlow Boink]

Where are you reading all this in my posts? My sister is the first to admit that her daughter is a rambunctious little girl with an attitude.Rubystreak's interpretation is one that I picked up on as one possible reading of the OP, though not the only one. You did say, "my redheaded niece, who is in kindergarten, got sent to the Principal's office again. For fighting!" This might or might not mean that she has a history of being sent to the Principal's office for fighting. "The Principal told my sister that if this kind of thing happens again, she'll have to suspend my niece from school" could mean that the principal is a zero-tolerance kind of guy, or that this was the last straw.

We're only getting the story third- or fourth-hand. Depending on whether or not your sister has a case of "my child can do no wrong"-ism (which the OP leaves open as a possibility), what she calls a "rambunctious little girl with an attitude" might be called, by an impartial observer, "a hellion who whales the tar out of the other kids at any provocation."

[Carol Stream]

We are supposed to be learning from the past as we move forward and rectifying the mistakes of the past. If nobody ever sheds this frontier mentality, we're doomed.

You're quite right.

What we really need is sunshine and bunnies and lollipops for EVERYONE! In a collaborative fashion, of course! YAY!

[Beware of Doug]

Hardly. We need to teach violence. Violence built this country, violence expanded it, and violence will preserve it.




:rolleyes:

[Mister Rik]

what she calls a "rambunctious little girl with an attitude" might be called, by an impartial observer, "a hellion who whales the tar out of the other kids at any provocation."
Personally, I think my niece is suffering from blatant redheadism. She's got bright red hair which, by itself, is enough to make a redheadist say, "Now there's a troublemaker!" and move to walk on the opposite side of the street, or at the very least watch her carefully. Maybe shout, "Go back to Scotland!" And her hair alone makes her stand out from the rest of the kids, drawing the eye the way the red car on the freeway draws the eye of the trooper with the radar gun, who tickets the driver of the red car in spite of the fact that every other driver on the road was traveling at the same speed.

Of course, I'm joking :cool:

Anyway, at this point my niece shows indications that she could end up being both jock and nerd. She's very smart; she put herself in the "smart kids" group at school (Seriously - her school offers the "smart kids" extra opportunities for more advanced learning, and this group leaves their normal class part way through the school day. She wasn't initially chosen to be part of this group, but at some point she decided she should have been and just got up and went with them as they were leaving one day. That may have been the cause of her first trip to the Principal's office, after her teacher noticed her missing. But it turned out she did so well with the advanced group that they let her keep going.) At the other end, she can throw a ball with remarkable accuracy (though catching still needs some work), and my dad is teaching her archery, and she can hit the target consistently. I hope she never has to choose between "jock" and "nerd". Why not be both? Oh, and she has natural musical talent, too. She memorizes songs from the radio and sings them back, in tune, and she also has a good natural sense of rhythm.

Unfortunately, her older sister is a tall, skinny, blue-eyed blonde airhead (I hate to say it, but ...) who so far has shown little aptitude for anything beyond looking pretty. Well, actually she may have an artistic bent. She came up with the idea a while back to glue googly eyes onto her baby pictures ...

[Muffin]

Why in the world would one institute a no fighting policy rather than a no bullying policy?

The simple fact is that there are some children who like to beat people up. For this sort of hard-core bully (as opposed to children who are simply a bit slow in learning to socially interact), all the counseling, medication and jail time in the world will not stop this behaviour – all it does is give them something to crow about. As adults, the law is available to deal with people who commit assaults, including the availability of self-defence by the victim. Why should innocent children not receive the same level of protection?

If the school is unable to protect a child from assaults, then it is the height of absurdity for the school to then punish the victim for defending himself or herself.

Actual protection from actual assaults should take much higher priority than the theoretical discussion of the philosophy of violence or non-violence.

[Muffin]

In the grade ahead of me, there were several bullies – all of whom who were sufficiently mentally disturbed that they were confined to reformatories prior to entering high-school. In primary school they daily beat up children, including myself. The parents of the victims repeatedly raised the problem with the teachers and principal. The assaults continued. The parents took up the matter with the school board, resulting in the principal being fired. The assaults continued.

By elementary school, my parents placed me in a private school where bullying was not tolerated, and where students, both individually and by way of student prefects, were expected to comport themselves responsibly. A year later one of the bullies enrolled in that school and attempted to continue the bullying against me and others. For the first and only time in my life, I fought back, for at that school we had been taught that no quarter should be given to bullies.

Once the bully was released from hospital and returned to school a couple of days later, a school assembly was called, the headmaster gave a speech on bullying, shook my hand and publicly congratulated me, and then caned the bully. The bullying ceased.

I expect that the bully, in his disturbed little mind, came to the realization that unlike the public system, this new private school would support my causing him significant pain, so he would be best to not assault me or any other person again.

Hard, bone crushing, bloody physical violence is vulgar, but effective, when it comes to dealing with bullies. If the authorities can not protect victims from assaults (and suspending victims of assaults is in no way protecting them), and the bullies will not listen to reason or respond to treatment or incarceration, then beat them within an inch of their lives such that at a gut level they will be in fear of the victims.

[athelas]

Very good, Muffin, but I highly doubt that the school system, which (as demonstrated in thread) views all violence as barbaric and blindbly believes in the ability of authority to enforce Niceness (as opposed to your example, in which authority was merely a catalyst for the "grassroots" change you brought), will ever be able to mount such an effective program, even minus the caning.

[The Flying Dutchman]

Muffin, you son of a bitch, I have a whole new attitude about you. Up till now I thought you were a bit of a soft pansy priveleged lawyer. (I'm probably exaggerating). You are obviously priveleged, with the private school education, but you risked serious injury to set things right for your life. Yes that appeals to my youthful sentiments generating respect. You did good.

However, I still think they should have suspended you.

[Muffin]

Muffin, you son of a bitch, I have a whole new attitude about you. Up till now I thought you were a bit of a soft pansy priveleged lawyer. (I'm probably exaggerating). You are obviously priveleged, with the private school education, but you risked serious injury to set things right for your life. Yes that appeals to my youthful sentiments generating respect. You did good.

However, I still think they should have suspended you.Privileged as a child yes, lawyer yes, pansy no (though a strong proponent of gay rights), soft . . . you make me laugh – I throw you off waterfall last . . . but I admit I look like a typical dumpy middle aged suit.

The thing about the private school was that it helped me learn to always strive to be the best I could be, focusing extensively on building sound character, strong body and strong mind. It left me with the backbone to get the job done, whatever that job might be. In the two public schools and three public high schools I attended, this was not the case, for the teachers in the public system were too busy dealing with bad acting students to spend much time helping good kids learn to soar.

If you had expelled me, I expect that you would be facing a lawsuit from my parents for failing to protect me from a clearly foreseeable serious assault while in your care (bear in mind they were front and centre in having the public school principal fired for not preventing bullying). More to the point, one of the virtues promoted at that school was that one should stand up for one’s self and for others. Punishing a person for defending against a bully would run contrary to the values that the school was trying to instill.

[Mister Rik]

If the school is unable to protect a child from assaults, then it is the height of absurdity for the school to then punish the victim for defending himself or herself.
Preach! Here's what I think it boils down to: these "no violence" policies are, in reality, "no fighting" policies. A single individual getting his or her ass kicked by a bully is not technically a "fight", and it doesn't draw a crowd of onlookers (in fact, I suspect most bullies go out of their way to make sure there are no witnesses beyond their own buddies). Most kids will look the other way when a bully is handing out a smackdown out of fear of being the next victim. If the victim fights back, however, it's suddenly an actual "fight", and that tends to draw a crowd. Suddenly, it has become a "situation" that the faculty has to deal with, and really, they don't want to have to deal with it.

[Boo Boo Foo]

Boy, these posts explain a lot about why so many people get killed in that country of yours. This whole 'beat the crap out of anybody that gets in your face' mentality is real, real creepy.Oh go shove a pineapple up your ass, you condescending fuckwit. For fuck's sake, what a totally asinine cheapshot to take in a thread about kindergarten spats.

[Mellivora capensis]

Of course you may ask! It's nothing too exciting. My name is Sarah, and my husband, being of Hispanic background, calls me Sarafina sometimes. I anglicized the spelling to go with the real spelling of my name, and to make it easier to get as a screen name (Sarafina is often already taken).

Turnabout it fair play...how about your screen name? :)

Sorry for the delay, IPAW.

Ah, I was partly right (Sarafina). I was wrong where I thought it was in reference to the movie Sarafina!, or the highly controversial South African play Sarafina II. :D

http://www.sarafina.co.za/frameset.asp?pageName=factsOnTheFilm
http://www.dispatch.co.za/1998/11/17/easterncape/SARAFINA.HTM

As for mine, I have a great admiration for the honey badger, particulary its reputation as a <ahem> ferocious fighter.

[Mellivora capensis]

...
As for mine, I have a great admiration for the honey badger, particulary its reputation as a <ahem> ferocious fighter.

Jesus. I'm not particulary attentive on Mondays, it seems.

[saoirse]

Once the bully was released from hospital and returned to school a couple of days later, a school assembly was called, the headmaster gave a speech on bullying, shook my hand and publicly congratulated me, and then caned the bully. The bullying ceased.

I expect that the bully, in his disturbed little mind, came to the realization that unlike the public system, this new private school would support my causing him significant pain, so he would be best to not assault me or any other person again.


You rock! It would have been even cooler if you had just come up to that asshiole on the first day of school and beat the crap out of him. Who would believe the known bully didn't start it? Hospitalize that bully, get him caned and then expelled, then hoot it up with your classmates.

Wow, priveleged scion, lawyer, wit and deadly fisticuffier. You remind me of Ernest Hemingway.

[Yeticus Rex]

My question is this: why should someone be expected to take a beating, as it were? Blocking punches is good to know, but it sounds like a prolonged attack where your son still managed to get injured. Retaliation, as I see it, is someone shoving you or hitting you, but making no further attempt to harm you, and you shoving or hitting them back. In that case, if someone only hits you once but is not continuing to pose a threat, then reporting it to the authorities would be the best option. But if someone continues to hit you repeatedly, while you just try to dodge the punches or cover your face with your arms, seems like putting yourself in too much danger. If someone won't stop hitting you, I don't see how in that situation a good punch to the nose which stuns your attacker and allows you time to get away can be considered retaliation. To me, that seems like self-defense.

Once, I got jumped by 3 older girls, who kicked the crap out of me for several minutes while I did nothing but try to dodge their blows and protect my face. I ended up with a bloody nose and black eye and generally just got the shit kicked out of me. In hindsight, I would have taken a few swings at the biggest girl- hit the biggest one, and the others back down.

I think the problem here is that some don't see a difference between self-defense and retaliation. The latter is done out of anger, the former is a means of preventing more harm and giving yourself a chance to get away.
Remember, each school has it's own bullying policy.....my son's high school was pretty damn stringent......"Zero Tolerence". Although my son was attacked from behind fairly quickly (three blows to the head) before he could respond in ANY fashion, he had the wherewithall to put his arms up and defend himself from further injury. When the two boys got sent to the office, the other kid claimed that my son started it. Since no teachers actually saw the incident and both kids claimed that the other started it, they decided that "Zero Tolerence" meant that both should be suspended. Good thing that this policy included contacting the parents, because I was the only one with a shred of logic who pointed out that this was not a fight, but an attack. After taking the admin and cop through some simple steps in logic, I got them to reason that the other kid was at fault. Had my son retaliated or fought back, I would not have been able to logically show that he was defending himself. My son missed one day, while the other kid got the full week of suspension and the eventual expulsion when he tried to pull that same tired shit again.

I also forgot to mention that my son has played hockey until about that time......he has had far worse things (both, allowable [like getting a 70 mph slapshot above his ankle] and non-allowable [getting a 2 handed slash with a stick on his neck]) done to him there than what this kid did to him. It really depends on how tough your kid is, I guess. My kid knew that 3 punches to the head is nothing compared to getting the boot by the school and being discarded at some school for delinquents. I applaud him for that. YMMV, depending on your kid and what you teach him.

I guess my idea of defense doesn't mean I should sit back and take a pounding.
Sitting back? When did I ever advocate this? That's the worse thing you can do!

There are 3 things you can do:
1. Be aggressive. (Wrong) Impede on the other party's personal space. Retaliate.
2. Be assertive. (Right) Respect the other party's personal space, while defending your own. This is what my son did.
3. Be passive. (Wrong) Allowing the other party to impede your personal space. Being defenseless.

My son made the right choice while sacrificing the minimal - a few bumps compared to suspension/expulsion.

Hey, Marc......remember this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=189156&highlight=Hockey)?

My kid has learned over the years that physical violence (attacking or retaliation) puts you in:

A. The Penalty Box
B. Some crappy school for delinquents
C. Jail
D. All the above, when repeated as the years go by.

My kid also learned that defense is:

A. Stopping the puck from being advanced by the other team
B. Protecting yourself from physical harm without harming the attacker (by retaliating)
C. Adjusting to idiotic policies by short-sighted administrators/lawmakers to preserve his own freedoms and privileges.
D. All the above, when repeated as the years go by.

[Sam Stone]

Our daughter has been taught that if she's bullied she should go to the authorities. However, if she can't, or if they won't do anything, she has every right to defend herself and fight back if necessary. It's not the first option - it's the last. But it IS an option.

She's also been taught that there are only two ways that violence will ever be excused by us - if she's defending herself, or if she's going to the aid of a smaller child who needs defending.

What I think is wrong with the 'never fight back!' attitude is that it's really preaching a culture of passivity - that ultimately, it's the job of someone in authority to look after you, and that when there is conflict your only thought is to stay away from it while the people in charge deal with it.

This is not healthy for society. I can remember when I was younger, it was considered cowardly to not step in and help someone who was being physically coerced. If you saw someone being mugged, by God you had better help him or her. About 20 years ago, there was a case of a woman who was raped in a public place, and a bunch of bystanders did nothing about it. They were excoriated both in the media and in the court of public opinion. But that attitude seems to be gone now. "Don't get involved" is the key word.

When Marc Lepine decided to shoot a bunch of women, he walked into a classroom with a gun, and ordered the men to get up and leave. They did. Once they were all out of the room, Lepine began shooting women. Not one of those men tried to stop him. When he left the room, he walked right past all those men, and not one tried to stop him.

In the recent Virginia Tech shootings, only one person tried to stop the shooter - a 78 year old Holocaust survivor. He was killed by the shooter, but his class was spared. It would appear that he learned a lesson about being passive in the face of violence somewhat earlier in life.

What I want to instill most in my daughter is that she is responsible for her own destiny, that ultimately she is responsible for her own safety, and that defending the defenseless is a virtue.

"‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

Now, being a young child who still needs to develop good judgement, we teach her that her first step is to go to an authority figure and explain what happened. But if she can't, if she's in imminent danger and there are no teachers around, well, she does what she has to do. But there will be no, "It's always wrong to use violence" lectures from me, because I don't believe it. It's always wrong to initiate violence.

[LonesomePolecat]

You don't teach a girl to protect herself by teaching her to get into fights. You teach her that it's not all right for anybody to hit anybody and that if some idiot (boyfriend, schoolmate, whoever) hits her, she needs to notify authorities. Immediately.

What kind of people are saying she should be taught to 'fight back'? Is this not the 21st Century? Are we not supposed to have progressed beyond stupid brute force as a way to resolve conflicts yet?

Cripes.
'Cuz, as we all know, science has taught us how to completely eliminate violence from everyday life, and there is no need whatsoever to prepare yourself for dealing with violent situations. :rolleyes: Say, what's the street address for your ivory tower?

[audreyayn]

When I was in school, reporting a bully would cause a call to your parents. "Your child isn't getting along with the other children," they would say. The bully would not get so much as a talking-to.

Whereas if you punched back, the other kid wouldn't tattle and the other kids would stop picking on you for a year. Generally you had to punch a kid about once a year--that was just for violence, by the way. Didn't stop verbal bullying.

[Rubystreak]

When I was in school, reporting a bully would cause a call to your parents.

Sigh. When was this, 1956?

"Your child isn't getting along with the other children," they would say. The bully would not get so much as a talking-to.

This ain't how it works anymore. Bullying is taken much more seriously than it was then, or when I was a kid (1980s). Believe it or not, the world has moved on in its thinking about how schools should work. We call this the "post-Columbine era."

Remember, often identifying which kid is the bully really depends on the POV of the person. Also, kids lie. It's sometimes pretty hard for the school to determine who started it, especially if both kids have hit each other. Every villain is the hero of his own story, so both kids may think the other kid started it, with varying degrees of legitimacy. Unless one of the kids has a history of violence, it's each kid's word against the others. Witnesses are often not that useful either.

Whereas if you punched back, the other kid wouldn't tattle and the other kids would stop picking on you for a year. Generally you had to punch a kid about once a year--that was just for violence, by the way. Didn't stop verbal bullying.

What do you think, that schools can change human nature and prevent all bullying, verbal and physical? Can't win for losing: zero tolerance for violence is wrong, punishing hitting whenever it happens is wrong, but bullying is also wrong, and bullies should be punished. Teachers and administrators must have perfect knowledge of who did what to whom, and apply discipline with absolute justice. All for salaries half of what people with equivalent educational levels make in the private sector.

Really. I realize a lot of Dopers had a bad time in school and were picked on. This has distorted a lot of people's idea of how schools work and how discipline is/should be meted out, often advocating some unwittingly inconsistent and unworkable policy ideals for schools. This has been a very frustrating thread to read, for me.

[Unauthorized Cinnamon]

I try to teach my daughter what my Tae Kwon Do teacher taught us: do not escalate a situation unnecessarily, but you can and may remove someone's hands from your person, and here's how.

We originally told her, "Don't hit people!" when she would have a shoving match over a toy or whatever, but then I would find her standing/lying stock still while even a much smaller kid whaled on her. So now I tell her it is absolutely unacceptable to hit someone because you're mad, but you can do what's necessary to stop someone from hitting you.

I'm curious what the more non-violence-pushing folks think about this: is blocking someone from hitting or kicking you "violence" which should be punished? What about removing someone's hand from your body or clothes?

In another vein entirely, I wonder if the "pummel someone, and you're no longer a target" phenomenon stems from some kind of vestigial expectation of social groups to have an omega member. Reading this thread brings to mind Robert Sapolsky's stuff about baboons, who basically have a pecking order based on a combination of brute strength, social networking, and other factors, and where there's someone who's lowest on the ladder and gets roughed up whenever other group members are cranky and want to take it out on someone.

I think we can agree that some kids send out "omega member" signals, usually some combination of not being athletic, and clearly being really bothered or scared by intimidation and insults. I'm not saying retaliation is justified, just wondering if somewhere in the sub-human areas of their brains, bullies remove the omega label from a kid who fights back.

Incidentally, my husband was a smart, quiet kid, and he was mercilessly harassed by a bully - usually minor physical attacks, nothing really dangerous, just humiliating, scary, and designed to wear him down over time. Well, over time, Mr. Cinnamon also transformed into a 6'4", 200 lb gorilla of a young man, but this in itself did nothing to change the situation. What changed it was one day he snapped and gave the kid a savage beating. That changed how that kid and others defined him, once and for all. I'm in no way saying what he did was right (nor does he think it was), but it's an illustration of my armchair evolutionary biology theory.

[Rubystreak]

I'm curious what the more non-violence-pushing folks think about this: is blocking someone from hitting or kicking you "violence" which should be punished? What about removing someone's hand from your body or clothes?

Has anyone, I mean ANYONE, in this thread advocated allowing yourself to be pummeled with absolutely no resistance? I think this is a straw man, which has been advanced numerous times during this thread. Of course you should defend yourself and try not to get hurt. If you do this by hitting back, then expect consequences. Grappling/blocking a blow isn't the same as a punch or kick.

Reading this thread brings to mind Robert Sapolsky's stuff about baboons,

How apt. I agree that some people who have posted to this thread are advocating baboon-like behavior.

What changed it was one day he snapped and gave the kid a savage beating. That changed how that kid and others defined him, once and for all. I'm in no way saying what he did was right (nor does he think it was), but it's an illustration of my armchair evolutionary biology theory.

Or it illustrates that no one likes to get their ass kicked. If you give someone a savage beating, I bet that person won't fuck with you again. Negative reinforcement is a classic way to discourage behavior you don't like. But all that does it make you the alpha baboon. Understandably, if you do this in school, you will be suspended if anyone finds out about it, no matter how mean the bully was leading up to the savage beating.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

Really. I realize a lot of Dopers had a bad time in school and were picked on. This has distorted a lot of people's idea of how schools work and how discipline is/should be meted out, often advocating some unwittingly inconsistent and unworkable policy ideals for schools. This has been a very frustrating thread to read, for me.


Ruby all I can say is I'm glad my kids had teachers that seemed to be a lot like you.

[Rubystreak]

Ruby all I can say is I'm glad my kids had teachers that seemed to be a lot like you.

Thank you. I can't tell you how much I appreciate you saying this.

[Unauthorized Cinnamon]

Has anyone, I mean ANYONE, in this thread advocated allowing yourself to be pummeled with absolutely no resistance? I think this is a straw man, which has been advanced numerous times during this thread. Of course you should defend yourself and try not to get hurt. If you do this by hitting back, then expect consequences. Grappling/blocking a blow isn't the same as a punch or kick.I admit I did not go back and dissect each post, but honestly, I couldn't tell if you and one or two other people were allowing for, as you say, grappling and blocking. My impression of your posts on self defense was that you were saying self defense is okay, but also saying it's OK to punish kids for it (that they should defend themselves, but fully expect to be punished for it). I may well have misread you, and I'm grateful for the clarification.

If I may, I'd like to go a step further with self defense and offer that sometimes, the only way to prevent someone from harming you is to hit, kick, punch, etc. Not retaliation, and not overreaction, but truly, in some situations you have to inflict harm to avoid being harmed yourself. And sometimes the harm to you is so imminent that it's unreasonable to appeal to outside help. This is generally acknowledged in criminal law, to the extent that we find it perfectly acceptable for a woman to shoot a potential rapist in the head, if need be.

As for the alpha/omega thing, I freely admit I'm just throwing it out there, with no proof or scientific evidence, just as something that struck me.

[Mister Rik]

This ain't how it works anymore. Bullying is taken much more seriously than it was then, or when I was a kid (1980s). Believe it or not, the world has moved on in its thinking about how schools should work. We call this the "post-Columbine era."
I honestly appreciate the problems you have with this thread, I really do. I (and I'm guessing many others in this discussion) just think it's really sad that it took a mass murder to make the education system wake up to the reality of what some of their charges have to put up with day in and day out.

Granted, the Columbine killers were whacked out in other ways, and I can't blame "easy access to firearms" at all. I had much easier access to guns than most kids I knew - my dad had a whole bunch of them, and taught me how to use them. I was an excellent shot; at 12 years old I could (and did) place two shots less than an inch apart at a range of 300 yards. But it never even crossed my mind to shoot anybody. Still, when I heard about Columbine and learned of the shooters' motivations, I confess that I easily empathized with them, even while I sympathized with the victims. [Note: I know you didn't say anything about "easy access to firearms"; I'm just addressing a factor that frequently comes up when school shootings are mentioned, not trying to attribute to you something you didn't say.]

For me, the bullying mostly stopped when I got to high school, for unknown reasons. I wasn't doing anything different AFAIK; it just stopped. Maybe the bullies grew up or something, or ended up at a different high school. Or maybe it's because I took up smoking and started hanging out with the "thugs" ;) Actually, that may have been a big part of it: I found a group to fit into, something I never really managed in elementary school or junior high.

[Rubystreak]

I admit I did not go back and dissect each post, but honestly, I couldn't tell if you and one or two other people were allowing for, as you say, grappling and blocking. My impression of your posts on self defense was that you were saying self defense is okay, but also saying it's OK to punish kids for it (that they should defend themselves, but fully expect to be punished for it). I may well have misread you, and I'm grateful for the clarification.

It depends on what you choose to do in your own defense. If you punch or kick someone in the face in "self-defense," then you should expect to be suspended from school. If you block/parry, then you will not hurt the other kid and will probably have defensive marks to show when the other kid says you started it.

If I may, I'd like to go a step further with self defense and offer that sometimes, the only way to prevent someone from harming you is to hit, kick, punch, etc. Not retaliation, and not overreaction, but truly, in some situations you have to inflict harm to avoid being harmed yourself. And sometimes the harm to you is so imminent that it's unreasonable to appeal to outside help. This is generally acknowledged in criminal law, to the extent that we find it perfectly acceptable for a woman to shoot a potential rapist in the head, if need be.

That's fine, but this is SCHOOL, not a dark alley when you're surrounded by armed thugs, or being menaced by a grown man who wants to rape you. The OP's niece is in KINDERGARTEN. School is a much more controlled environment than the big wide world. I know that really bad, violent things do occasionally happen in school, and that's usually because someone wasn't doing their job. You should be able to get away from the bully and find an adult who can help you within minutes, if not seconds, in school.

[RedRosesForMe]

Has anyone, I mean ANYONE, in this thread advocated allowing yourself to be pummeled with absolutely no resistance? I think this is a straw man, which has been advanced numerous times during this thread. Of course you should defend yourself and try not to get hurt. If you do this by hitting back, then expect consequences. Grappling/blocking a blow isn't the same as a punch or kick.


This is the problem. If we're discussing zero-tolerance policies where both parties are punished, then the only available alternative to getting pummeled when one is unable to get away is to fight back- and get detention or suspension or whatever.

That's what I personally have an issue with- this situation forces kids- sometimes very small children- to choose between getting hurt or fighting back and getting punished. Obviously not every situation includes the only options of take a pounding or hit back. There might be teachers nearby, or you might be able to outrun your attacker, or something similar. But kids who are bullies understand this, and choose to attack other kids when there are no adults around and (preferably) where there is little opportunity to escape- e.g. the bathroom. So if a kid is cornered by a bully, he risks either physical injury or punishment.

My problem (and I assume, many other posters feel the same way) is that ZT policies don't allow those in authority to use their good (or any) judgement. I also have a problem with the idea that schools somehow operate in their own universe and the rules/laws of the real world don't apply.

If I am accosted on the street by a man trying to rape or kill me or harm me in any way, I am allowed to use reasonable force to protect myself. Which means, I can kick him in the balls or punch him in the face until he no longer poses a threat. If I knock him down (or knock him out) but continue to hit him then it's no longer reasonable- it's hard to argue self-defense when you're kicking a guy on the ground.

I think it's unreasonable to effectively remove the possibility of self-defense from the school environment. Obviously, schools don't have the benefit of a judicial system, but to assume that a reasonably intelligent adult is incapable of weighing the facts and deciding Johnny was acting in self-defense is stupid.

Finally, for the whole grappling/blocking punches vs. striking back argument- useful skills, definitely, but have you ever actually been in a fight? Those are skills that boxers/martial artists practice for years without mastering, so you can't assume that a kid who goes to karate on Saturdays will always be able to prevent physical harm to him/herself without actually striking the attacker.

I've been in quite a few fights, I've always been a bit "different" and got picked on a lot. I can tell you, when the adrenaline starts pumping and I go into self-preservation mode, I don't have the time or cognitive ability to consider deftly dodging or blocking the blows- if I can dodge a punch, I will absolutely do it, but at the same time I'll be drawing back my right hand and winding up a Haymaker to make sure that guy doesn't try to hit me again.

In short, if, as adults, we realize that force is sometimes necessary to protect yourself, why do we exclude children from that realization?

[Rubystreak]

This is the problem. If we're discussing zero-tolerance policies where both parties are punished, then the only available alternative to getting pummeled when one is unable to get away is to fight back- and get detention or suspension or whatever.

Clearly we're not discussing those ZT policies. I for one have never been in a school where the particulars of the case did not figure into the punishment given. Claims to the contrary run counter to what I know to be true.

Here's a cite from Indiana's ZT policy. (http://www.indiana.edu/~safeschl/zero.html) I picked this because it was the first one to come up on Google.

Oftentimes, policymakers in these contentious incidents claim that they are allowed little or no room for flexibility in the administration of district disciplinary policy. Yet this inflexibility is in no way a requirement of federal zero tolerance policy. Indeed, by requiring local districts to have in place a procedure allowing for case-by-case review, the Gun-Free Schools Act appears to mandate some degree of flexibility in the implementation of zero tolerance.

I hope this quells the continued claims that ZT=everyone gets the same punishment regardless of context. BTW, I agree with the site's feelings about the effectiveness of suspensions on changing behavior. Schools are working in that too.

[RedRosesForMe]

Rubystreak, I'll admit my idea of ZT policies may not be entirely correct, but I don't think that kids who fight back (defensively, not retaliation) should be punished at all, even if it's only a detention compared to the other kid's suspension.

My views on ZT have been formed by many instances of idiotic cases where there was no room for case-by-case review. I remember one student being suspended after a teacher saw him swallow mouthwash. He normally used mouthwash after lunch, but was running late for class and didn't have time to run to the bathroom. So he used the mouthwash at his locker and chose to swallow it instead of spitting it on the floor or in the trashcan, and by doing so violated the school's ZT for alcohol policy.

That's what I have a problem with- if the kid had been seen drinking a large amount of mouthwash, or had done it repeatedly, then I'd worry about a drinking problem. But this case doesn't seem like the kid needed to be suspended for practicing oral hygiene. At most, the teacher should have taken him aside and explained that mouthwash is not meant to be ingested, and can be dangerous if drunk in large quantities.

Similarly, a victim of bullying, who uses force for self-defense, should be given a lecture about how violence is only to be used as a last resort and that s/he should report any incidents to a teacher, with the understanding that a teacher is not always nearby and if s/he finds him/herself in imminent danger a minimum amount of force is justified.

[Rubystreak]

Rubystreak, I'll admit my idea of ZT policies may not be entirely correct, but I don't think that kids who fight back (defensively, not retaliation) should be punished at all, even if it's only a detention compared to the other kid's suspension.

Then you have to prove that you were just defending yourself. If you can't, then what should the school do? Any suggestions?

[Sam Stone]

Use their judgement?

[RedRosesForMe]

Use their judgement?

Yeah. If there aren't witnesses to corroborate the story and your knuckles are just as bruised as the other kid's, and this is not a repeated pattern of behavior that you've already complained to the teacher or principal about, then it sucks that you get the same punishment as the other kid, but what can be done?

It works the same in the criminal justice system- if you can't prove you acted in self-defense you'll probably get convicted. I just don't like the idea of teachers and principles having their hands tied when it comes to bullying- even if both parties don't get punished equally, I don't like the idea of the victim being punished.

[Sam Stone]

In 90% of cases, everyone knows exactly who did the bullying. When you confront two children fighting, and one of them is the bully who is caught fighting routinely, and the other is the nerdy honors student, and they both point at each other and say, "He started it!", I think we can make a fair judgement as to who is likely to blame.

That's the way it was done in my day. If occasionally the teachers got it wrong, well, c'est la vie. Getting it wrong on occasion is better than ALWAYS getting it wrong, which is what zero tolerance achieves.

Frankly, I think there are several related problems here - one is the almost complete lack of males in primary education. In my day (1970's, mostly), female teachers outnumbered the men by probably 2 to 1 or 3 to 1. But today, the ratio is much, much higher. In fact, in my daughter's school there isn't a single male teacher. As a result, little boys are often misunderstood, they're expected to behave like girls, and they don't do so well. On the last standardized tests administered at her school the boys scored an average of 13 points below the girls - a HUGE gap.

Unfortunately, a lot of the most troubled boys also come from broken homes, which means they don't have father figures at home, either.

Add in zero tolerance policies that prevent schools from singling out bullying behaviour and allowing other kids to protect themselves, and you've got a bad situation.

[mswas]

You don't teach a girl to protect herself by teaching her to get into fights. You teach her that it's not all right for anybody to hit anybody and that if some idiot (boyfriend, schoolmate, whoever) hits her, she needs to notify authorities. Immediately.

What kind of people are saying she should be taught to 'fight back'? Is this not the 21st Century? Are we not supposed to have progressed beyond stupid brute force as a way to resolve conflicts yet?

Cripes.

Yeah, they should learn that whenever they have a problem they should appeal to an ineffective bureaucracy. Nothing shows a bully what's what like filling out forms in triplicate.

[1010011010]

Something that came up in a self-defense discussion elsewhere was that the actions you take in self-defense are to stop the attacker. Someone responded with something to the effect of "I don't spend my weekends at Wild Bill's Fancy Shooting Academy. I doubt I could shoot a gun out of someone's hand or 'wing' them". At which point it is clarified: Follow your training. Two shots to center of mass? Sure. But don't shoot to killthem, shoot to stop them.

If I've got two kids, one who looks pretty beat up but has no serious injuries and another who looks okay except that he's had his knee kicked through... I'd give the kid with the broken leg suspension for fighting in school and the other kid nothing more harsh than some suggestions for less destructive methods of self-defense. And then I'd wait to get sued.

The outcome of zero tolerance under my observation has been that administrators overlook more "minor" stuff because the mandatory minimum for punishment has been raised. They can't take action on "minor" stuff because it's an over-reaction due to policy requirements. Then, when something does cross that "minor" threshold, they drop the hammer on whoever is involved.
What thought process does this give to the victims of the "minor" abuse?
If they're going to retaliate, they better do it big.
It just creates the environment where things stew until they boil over.

Negative reinforcement is a classic way to discourage behavior you don't like.<pet peeve>Negative reinforcement is the removal of adverse stimuli when the subject performs the correct action. It is a way of encouraging a behaviour you do like. It is, as noted in popular culture, way less effective than positive reinforcement. Oddly, I'd say the bullying of the kids that are "different" is a form of negative reinforcement.

Beating the crap out of a bully for performing undesirably is punishment, not negative reinforcement. Punishment works for discouraging undesired behaviours approximately as well as positive reinforcement works for encouraging desired behaviours. Yay conditioning!</pet peeve>

[Rubystreak]

In 90% of cases, everyone knows exactly who did the bullying.

Cite?

No, really. It's often pretty hard to tell because there's a lot of crap leading up to an outbreak of violence. Very rarely is any kid a pure victim or a pure bully. Usually, shit flies both ways. If there's a clear size differential, or a weapon is used, or if there are uneven numbers of kids on each side, then it becomes easier to tell. Also, if one kid is all fucked up and the other kid is totally unscathed... I mean, there are sometimes ways to tell, sometimes it's just one kid's word against another's.

I wonder how many people expressing all these opinions have any recent experience in schools, or if all this negativity is knee-jerkery from memories of how hard you all had it when you were in school.

[Muffin]

I wonder how many people expressing all these opinions have any recent experience in schools, or if all this negativity is knee-jerkery from memories of how hard you all had it when you were in school.Or from representing bullies who are up on charges, and having learned from this that many of them are brutish animals who are so mentally unballanced that they will continue to assault weaker people regardless of what counseling and medication they are given.

To expect victims to be punished for reasonably defending themselves from such attackers is absurd. The courts certainly do not arbitrarily punish victims, so it is unfortunate that some teachers would have schools punish victims simply because the assaults took place without witnesses.

[Muffin]

I suppose we could brand bullies' foreheads with "Poor anger management", and then throw stones at them when the approach within twenty feet, but then that would be as silly as arbitrarily suspending victims for fighting when they were doing no more than reasonably defending themselves under the law.

[Rubystreak]

Or from representing bullies who are up on charges, and having learned from this that many of them are brutish animals who are so mentally unballanced that they will continue to assault weaker people regardless of what counseling and medication they are given.

How often does this happen? I don't think most school bullies are mentally ill criminals, so sorry.

To expect victims to be punished for reasonably defending themselves from such attackers is absurd.

Please show me where I said that. Please. I beg of you.

The courts certainly do not arbitrarily punish victims, so it is unfortunate that some teachers would have schools punish victims simply because the assaults took place without witnesses.

No, they don't arbitrarily punish victims. Please show me where I said that.

[Muffin]

How often does this happen?
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8516256&postcount=29

In Canada in the year bridging 1998-1999, 10,545 youths were charged for minor assaults, totalling about 10% of all the charges against youths. Violent crimes, including these minor assaults, totalled 22% of all charges. http://www.statcan.ca/english/freep...085-002-XIE.pdf

I don't think most school bullies are mentally ill criminals, so sorry.Hereabouts, 4% of students commit violent acts on other students http://www.lfcc.on.ca/when_teens_hurt_teens.pdf . I don't have any figures handy on how many of those are mentally ill, but from my own experience in having represented a lot of them in court, the ones who are arrested usually are mentally ill (I never represented one who was not) -- the question usually being are they so bat shit crazy that they have to be locked up, or can they be let loose under close supervision and medication.

Please show me where I said that. Please. I beg of you.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8511236&postcount=154 Of course you should defend yourself and try not to get hurt. If you do this by hitting back, then expect consequences. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8516562&postcount=32
Defend yourself. There are degrees of self-defense, some of which do not involve bloodying the other person. If you do choose to do harm, there will be consequences.

No, they don't arbitrarily punish victims. Please show me where I said that.http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8511236&postcount=154 Of course you should defend yourself and try not to get hurt. If you do this by hitting back, then expect consequences. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8516562&postcount=32
Defend yourself. There are degrees of self-defense, some of which do not involve bloodying the other person. If you do choose to do harm, there will be consequences.

I urge you to read the following study on youth-on-youth criminal violence: http://www.lfcc.on.ca/when_teens_hurt_teens.pdf , which points out that reasons for victims of youth-on-youth violence not reporting being assaulted include: "fear of not being believed" and "fear of being blamed."

And don't think for a second that blocking, covering up, or running will necessarily protect a person from an assault. Sometimes fighting back is the only immediate and effective defence. A child should not expect "consequences" for such defence.

[Rubystreak]

[Hereabouts, 4% of students commit violent acts on other students

A very low number. You haven't said what constitutes a violent act. It must be pretty bad for it to go to the police. Either that, or people are more litigious/less likely to trust school authorities to take care of it internally. I'm not sure you've proven your point here.

I don't have any figures handy on how many of those are mentally ill, but from my own experience in having represented a lot of them in court, the ones who are arrested usually are mentally ill (I never represented one who was not) -- the question usually being are they so bat shit crazy that they have to be locked up, or can they be let loose under close supervision and medication.

Don't you think that your sample group (kids who are so batshit crazy they wind up in court contolled care) is rather a skewed view of who the average bully is? These are extreme cases. They are pretty rare.

You have all these cites of things I said. They don't prove what you think they prove. I'm sorry, but since you just put tags here and no actual words from me, I'm not going to do your work for you. Suffice it to say, I don't think kids who are hurt by kids should arbitrarily be punished. You are vastly oversimplifying how the process works.

I urge you to read the following study on youth-on-youth criminal violence: http://www.lfcc.on.ca/when_teens_hurt_teens.pdf , which points out that reasons for victims of youth-on-youth violence not reporting being assaulted include: "fear of not being believed" and "fear of being blamed."

This is the human condition. Kids are also choosing not to tell their parents in this cite. The world is an imperfect place. Bullying and violence are going to happen. I don't think it's fair to say that's because of the indifference or negligence of schools.

And don't think for a second that blocking, covering up, or running will necessarily protect a person from an assault. Sometimes fighting back is the only immediate and effective defence. A child should not expect "consequences" for such defence.

It depends on the circumstances. This is what I've said all along.

[Stratocaster]

Cite?

No, really. It's often pretty hard to tell because there's a lot of crap leading up to an outbreak of violence. Very rarely is any kid a pure victim or a pure bully.Utter bullshit. There were absolutely pure bullies when I was a kid, and everybody knew it. When a tussle broke out, everybody knew who the prick was, 9 times out of 10. Very rarely, my ass.

What namby-pamby, nanny bullshit. If someone inflicts physical violence on you, you have the absolute right to retaliate. You don't want to be punched in the nose? Here's some basic advice. Don't punch somebody else in the nose. If you do, tough shit for what happens to you.

The PC, nanny bullshit rules that exist--give me a break! When I wanted someone to stop hitting me, I found the absolute best way to stop it was to hit him back. I don't give a shit what anyone says, I don't believe that dynamic has changed. God almighty.

[Rubystreak]

Utter bullshit. There were absolutely pure bullies when I was a kid, and everybody knew it. When a tussle broke out, everybody knew who the prick was, 9 times out of 10. Very rarely, my ass.

Your ass indeed. I'm sure you were objective about it, as are all parents. Whatever.

What namby-pamby, nanny bullshit. If someone inflicts physical violence on you, you have the absolute right to retaliate. You don't want to be punched in the nose? Here's some basic advice. Don't punch somebody else in the nose. If you do, tough shit for what happens to you.

You punch someone in the nose? If it was worth it, take the consequences. They would happen in the adult world too.

[Muffin]

It depends on the circumstances. This is what I've said all along.No, what you have said all along is that if a child hits back or harms the other, then there will be consequences. Please review the above cited quotes from your posts.

There is a world of difference between stating that it depends on the circumstances, and stating that if a child hits back or harms the other, then there will be consequences. The former is reasonable; the latter simply further victimizes the victim, by not believing the victim and by blaming the victim.

[Stratocaster]

Your ass indeed. I'm sure you were objective about it, as are all parents. Whatever.Not when I was a parent, when I was a kid. There were prick bullies around, and everyone knew who they were. Of course your objective "this is a rare occurrence" assertion is supported by volumes of evidence, eh? Whatever yourself.You punch someone in the nose? If it was worth it, take the consequences. They would happen in the adult world too.The consequences for someone defending himself ought to be nothing. That this is not the case doesn't make it right.

[Muffin]

You punch someone in the nose? If it was worth it, take the consequences. They would happen in the adult world too.No, that is not true. A person who is assaulted in the adult (or children's) world has every right to defend one's self, provided that the person only uses as much force as is necessary (e.g. walk away rather than hit back, hit back rather than shoot, etc.).

Please provide proof of your assertion.

[Muffin]

A very low number. 4% is low to you. Try telling that to the kids who are getting assaulted. To me, it is a discouragingly high number.

This is the human condition. Kids are also choosing not to tell their parents in this cite. The world is an imperfect place. Bullying and violence are going to happen. I don't think it's fair to say that's because of the indifference or negligence of schools. Causing a child to face consequences for defending him- or herself is at the least indifferent or negligent.

[Muffin]

You haven't said what constitutes a violent act.At a minimum, non-consentual direct or indirect application of force clearly beyond de minimus. In actuality, a pounding. Around here, kids don't get arrested for minor contact.

[meenie7]

All this discussion, unless I missed something, doesn't address the idea that even if teachers do care, and respond to your reports of bullying, tattling only makes the bullies harass you worse. I had a boy verbally accost me in 7th grade with sexually harrassing comments, ending with grabbing my breast, while we were in study hall. No one else "noticed" (we were in a science classroom, with black lab tables instead of individual desks, so I'm sure the girl sitting four inches from my left or one of the other five people at the table did notice, but you know what I mean) and I was getting bullied so much at that time, unrelentingly all day every day, that it didn't even register with me. However, I was visiting my aunt a few days later, and something related came up in our conversation so I mentioned the incident to her, and she encouraged me to report the boy, (who was a loser bully jackass, habitual troublemaker and poor student, btw) to the principal. I did so, and he was given three days of in school suspension for it.

Very nice, right?

Except...his girlfriend and some of her friends then proceeded to verbally bully me, then take my street clothes from my gym locker during class and flush them in the toilet, while they laughed at me and told me that if I ever did it again, it would only get worse. My parents were both at work, so I had to wear my sweaty, smelly gym kit for the rest of the day, along with sneakers delightfully filled with toilet water.

I don't think you can blame me, or any kid, for never, ever telling a principal anything again, even though I was physically assaulted and psychologically terrorized for the next six years every. single. day.

I hear about "anti-bullying" programs now and just laugh. All you're doing is making the bullied kids' lives worse, by giving the bullies and all their friends a solid reason to retaliate after their lame-ass "punishments" are over.

Yes, I am still bitter. I think I should be. I'll never let it go, because why should I? I was tortured from 2nd grade until I graduated from high school, and no one dealt with it in any way that actually helped.

[Quiddity Glomfuster]

Yeah, they should learn that whenever they have a problem they should appeal to an ineffective bureaucracy. Nothing shows a bully what's what like filling out forms in triplicate.

There are anti-bullying programs which are about educating entire schools - students and teachers alike - about the causes and prevention of bullying and how to deal with it. It's not about just the bullied telling a teacher but about other schoolmates and teachers and the community as a whole helping to prevent bullying and deal with it when it happens.

But, hey, why learn about advanced and intelligent ways to deal with this when resorting to good ol' fashioned fists worked. Back in the 50s. :rolleyes:

[Rubystreak]

At a minimum, non-consentual direct or indirect application of force clearly beyond de minimus. In actuality, a pounding. Around here, kids don't get arrested for minor contact.

You're not actually disagreeing with me, you do realize that. I don't think kids beat the shit out of other kids very often. That is, assault worthy of involving the police. If a kid thinks he's in real danger, he should defend himself and hope that he can prove it was self-defense. If it's as obvious as Stratocaster wants to claim, then there should be evidence and records of this kid being a violent prick, because that behavior rarely comes out of nowhere. We know who the violent kids are, and when they hurt someone, they usually get serious consequences. However, if both kids are totally bloody and fucked up, what manner to you recommend in determining who should get punished and who should get off scott free? Even the bully is someone's kid, and even bullies mount a defense of their actions. Please advise how to discern, in a case of mutual assault, who should get what consequences.

[Stratocaster]

But, hey, why learn about advanced and intelligent ways to deal with this when resorting to good ol' fashioned fists worked. Back in the 50s. :rolleyes:Advanced and intelligent, right. If you say so. Tell you what, you don't want to be punched in the nose, don't punch somebody else in the nose. It is absolutely primal how obvious this is. Any policy that protects the bully in defiance of this simple axiom is f@#$ed up. Period.

[Stratocaster]

You're not actually disagreeing with me, you do realize that. I don't think kids beat the shit out of other kids very often. That is, assault worthy of involving the police. If a kid thinks he's in real danger, he should defend himself and hope that he can prove it was self-defense. If it's as obvious as Stratocaster wants to claim, then there should be evidence and records of this kid being a violent prick, because that behavior rarely comes out of nowhere. We know who the violent kids are, and when they hurt someone, they usually get serious consequences.Perhaps we're not far off, then. I taught my son that he is never, EVER to be the person who introduces violence into an exchange. But if someone attacks him, he can defend himself, including retaliating in kind. I see nothing inappropriate about that.

If it's not obvious who the aggressor was, we'll exercise judgment. I'd assert, however, that we normally are very clear as to who the nasty little prick is.

[Rubystreak]

Advanced and intelligent, right. If you say so. Tell you what, you don't want to be punched in the nose, don't punch somebody else in the nose. It is absolutely primal how obvious this is. Any policy that protects the bully in defiance of this simple axiom is f@#$ed up. Period.

The problem is, both people are now punched in the nose. If there's no previous documentation of bullying, and no reliable witnesses, or witnesses who contradict each other, please tell me how the school is supposed to determine who should be punished for the punching and who should get the medal.

This is why you document bullying. If you are on record as saying another kid was picking on you, and if this kid has a history of this, believe me, it will go a long way in your favor when push (literally) comes to shove.

[Stratocaster]

The problem is, both people are now punched in the nose. If there's no previous documentation of bullying, and no reliable witnesses, or witnesses who contradict each other, please tell me how the school is supposed to determine who should be punished for the punching and who should get the medal.They'll do their best. But in the moment, if someone attacks my son, he is free to retaliate.

[Rubystreak]

They'll do their best. But in the moment, if someone attacks my son, he is free to retaliate.

Then you'll understand if he gets suspended, because we don't have federal funding to buy crystal balls. The school has to protect every kid, not just yours. If your kid punches another kid in the face, and the other kid says your kid started it, sans other evidence, he's gonna get bounced just like the other kid. You believe your kid, and you defend him; the other kid's parents might be just like you. I'm not sure what else you want to hear in this situation. It's the only logical policy for a school or a society.

[Stratocaster]

Then you'll understand if he gets suspended, because we don't have federal funding to buy crystal balls. The school has to protect every kid, not just yours. If your kid punches another kid in the face, and the other kid says your kid started it, sans other evidence, he's gonna get bounced just like the other kid. You believe your kid, and you defend him; the other kid's parents might be just like you. I'm not sure what else you want to hear in this situation. It's the only logical policy for a school or a society.Disagree, obviously. I do not for a second believe that in most instances it's not very clear who the aggressor was. No crystal ball required. In instances where it's not clear, well, we'll live with it. But my son is still free to defend himself.

[Rubystreak]

Disagree, obviously. I do not for a second believe that in most instances it's not very clear who the aggressor was. No crystal ball required. In instances where it's not clear, well, we'll live with it. But my son is still free to defend himself.

You're kidding yourself. When you know both kids, sometimes it's obvious and sometimes, it's not possible to determine exactly what happened for sure. It's just not. They both tell a story that supports their innocence, as you'd expect.

This is why I say-- document problems with other kids. It'll work in your favor. But if you punch someone in the face, don't expect people who weren't there to know you're the victim.

[Muffin]

Please advise how to discern, in a case of mutual assault, who should get what consequences.Simple, do not punish a victim for defending. If you can not determine who was defending, then do not punish both for fighting, for that guarantees that you are punishing the victim for fighting. Better to have the aggressor get off occasionally than to punish a victim. If you keep track of the "fights", you will eventually have a very good idea of who the bullies are, so that when a bully plays the victim card, you can call him or her on it.

[athelas]

You're kidding yourself. When you know both kids, sometimes it's obvious and sometimes, it's not possible to determine exactly what happened for sure. It's just not. They both tell a story that supports their innocence, as you'd expect.

This is why I say-- document problems with other kids. It'll work in your favor. But if you punch someone in the face, don't expect people who weren't there to know you're the victim.

In other words, the path of least resistance for the administrators. Like the others here, I am skeptical that there isn't a clear aggressor in most cases of bullying. But throwing your hands in the air and saying "Well, we gotta punish them equally unless you can provide irrefutable evidence" relieves the teacher and administrator both of the burden of investigation and the responsibility of making a decision. Why trouble themselves to investigate and find the truth, just over a matter of a few kids? One-size-fits-all zero tolerance policies are much easier for the adults involved.

[Rubystreak]

Simple, do not punish a victim for defending.

It's not always a dyad, victim/bully. Sometimes, it's a fight between two people, each of whom thinks he's right and the other kid deserves a smack.

If you can not determine who was defending, then do not punish both for fighting, for that guarantees that you are punishing the victim for fighting.

God, no, you're not. Sometimes, OFTEN, you're punishing two people who chose to fight. Can't you see it any other way than black and white?

In other words, the path of least resistance for the administrators. Like the others here, I am skeptical that there isn't a clear aggressor in most cases of bullying. But throwing your hands in the air and saying "Well, we gotta punish them equally unless you can provide irrefutable evidence" relieves the teacher and administrator both of the burden of investigation and the responsibility of making a decision. Why trouble themselves to investigate and find the truth, just over a matter of a few kids? One-size-fits-all zero tolerance policies are much easier for the adults involved.

Oh my fucking god, I can't believe I'm back to this argument again. How the fuck many times do I have to reiterate about the investigations that go on in determining consequences? Where did I say "irrefutable evidence," as if such a thing exists?

You people are fucking projecting like crazy here. You think everything is black and white, that teachers just want to take the easy way out, because we have no feelings and don't give a shit if kids are suffering. Really, what else is there to say but go fuck yourself? Since I feel I have explained the whole process and reality of the situation in excruciating fucking detail, but all you can remember is your own victimhood. Goddamn.

[Stratocaster]

You're kidding yourself. When you know both kids, sometimes it's obvious and sometimes, it's not possible to determine exactly what happened for sure. It's just not. They both tell a story that supports their innocence, as you'd expect.

This is why I say-- document problems with other kids. It'll work in your favor. But if you punch someone in the face, don't expect people who weren't there to know you're the victim.Nope, I base it on experience. I understand fully that there are asshole parents who say it's always the other kid's fault. But when their kid is in his tenth fight that year, each time with a different kid, I expect the school to be able to, I dunno, actually exercise some judgment. That's how fistfights were adjudicated when I was a kid, and it seemed to work just fine. It's only today that things are so gray and ambiguous that it would just be better, you know, if we let someone beat the shit out of us, rather than retaliate, since, after all, that makes it so much easier for the administration to deal with it.

I assert, yet again, that it is axiomatic that one ought to be able to defend oneself. It's lunacy to suggest otherwise.

[Stratocaster]

Since I feel I have explained the whole process and reality of the situation in excruciating fucking detail, but all you can remember is your own victimhood. Goddamn.I was never a victim. Somebody put his hands on me, I landed one right on his button. Settled things nicely.

[Rubystreak]

I was never a victim. Somebody put his hands on me, I landed one right on his button. Settled things nicely.

And if I had anything to say about it (and I don't-- only administrators can do this), I've vote to suspend your ass.

[Stratocaster]

And if I had anything to say about it (and I don't-- only administrators can do this), I've vote to suspend your ass.For defending myself. Gotcha. So much for that wise judgment you mentioned previously that takes circumstance into account.

[Muffin]

And if I had anything to say about it (and I don't-- only administrators can do this), I've vote to suspend your ass.Q.E.D.

[Rubystreak]

For defending myself. Gotcha. So much for that wise judgment you mentioned previously that takes circumstance into account.

You said you hit first. Too bad for you, that's how it fucking works.

Muffin, QED what? You hit first, you get suspended. End of story. I'm sure if it was your or yours on the receiving end of that punch, you'd want the same. Absolute lack of perspective on your part is the only thing preventing you from seeing logic.

I'm so glad you're not in charge of discipline at my school. You would take the word of someone that he was the victim just because he told you so, huh? Fucking ridiculous.

[Rubystreak]

Nope, I base it on experience. I understand fully that there are asshole parents who say it's always the other kid's fault. But when their kid is in his tenth fight that year, each time with a different kid, I expect the school to be able to, I dunno, actually exercise some judgment. That's how fistfights were adjudicated when I was a kid, and it seemed to work just fine.

Sure, if the kid is a chronic problem, that'll be taken into account. I don't know how many times I have to say that.

When you said the other kid "put his hands on you," did you mean he hit you? Pushed you? Poked his finger in your chest? It does matter. If you bust his nose and not a mark on you, though, what do you really expect the school to do?

It's only today that things are so gray and ambiguous that it would just be better, you know, if we let someone beat the shit out of us, rather than retaliate, since, after all, that makes it so much easier for the administration to deal with it.

No one wants anyone to take a beating. Or give one. I cannot say that enough, apparently, since I've said it a billion times already.

I assert, yet again, that it is axiomatic that one ought to be able to defend oneself. It's lunacy to suggest otherwise.

I assert, yet again, that you can defend yourself without busting someone in the button, as you put it.

[Stratocaster]

You said you hit first. Too bad for you, that's how it fucking works.No, I didn't. Try reading it again. Or did you assume, in this thread, that someone putting his hands on me meant he was brushing lint from my lapel?

[Stratocaster]

Sure, if the kid is a chronic problem, that'll be taken into account. I don't know how many times I have to say that.Then stop asserting that there's no way to know if someone's the aggressor, which seems to be your rationale for why this asinine policy is justified.

[Rubystreak]

Then stop asserting that there's no way to know if someone's the aggressor, which seems to be your rationale for why this asinine policy is justified.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said there was no way to know who was the aggressor. Sometimes you can know, sometimes it's not cut and dry. What world do you live in, where everything is always so easy?
The school has a legal obligation to protect all the kids and do due diligence figuring out who did what.

[Muffin]

You said you hit first. Too bad for you, that's how it fucking works.

Muffin, QED what? You hit first, you get suspended. End of story. I'm sure if it was your or yours on the receiving end of that punch, you'd want the same. Absolute lack of perspective on your part is the only thing preventing you from seeing logic.

I'm so glad you're not in charge of discipline at my school. You would take the word of someone that he was the victim just because he told you so, huh? Fucking ridiculous.No, he did not say that he hit first. He said quite the opposite.

[Gorgonzola]

How often does this happen? I don't think most school bullies are mentally ill criminals, so sorry.


Actually, if you look at the histories of "externalizing type" mentally ill kids, they have problems from very early on in the school setting -- very often in the form of violence to other kids and teachers. Childhood mental illness prevalence runs around 10% in the teen years between both sexes, so even if we split externalizing and internalizing types down the middle (which isn't really fair due to differences in what provokes seeking care, but I'll do it out of generosity), that gives you around 5%, or on a nice small playground of about 300, that's 15 little externalizers. And you don't know who they are? And there are enough other kids busy smacking each other that the picture is completely blurred, more often than not?

And particularly if those little externalizers find that they are not effectively intervened with, and additionally find they can get away with shit by exercising a modicum of cunning (lying, arguing, apologizing while plotting revenge), they have a fine chance of acquainting themselves with the criminal justice system not so far down the road. So it's all good for them.

The "internalizing types," well, sometimes those are manmade (like in meenie7's instance), in the educational analog to iatrogenesis.

[Stratocaster]

Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said there was no way to know who was the aggressor. Sometimes you can know, sometimes it's not cut and dry. What world do you live in, where everything is always so easy?
The school has a legal obligation to protect all the kids and do due diligence figuring out who did what.When you post something like this, it seems as if we're in agreement, but I suspect we are not. Do you believe a kid who punches back to protect himself from physical violence, in a situation where the administration is certain who started the exchange, should be punished to some extent? Let's set aside the "sometimes you can't be sure" scenarios for a moment. What's your position regarding an unambiguous situation?

[Rubystreak]

When you post something like this, it seems as if we're in agreement, but I suspect we are not. Do you believe a kid who punches back to protect himself from physical violence, in a situation where the administration is certain who started the exchange, should be punished to some extent? Let's set aside the "sometimes you can't be sure" scenarios for a moment. What's your position regarding an unambiguous situation?

Depends on how bad he hurts the other kid.

[Sam Stone]

Why does that matter? Are you saying that if a kid is bullied and takes a swing at the bully but the hit is ineffective, you might let him go, but if he managed to land a good one and break the bully's nose, then he'd be in trouble?

[Rubystreak]

Why does that matter? Are you saying that if a kid is bullied and takes a swing at the bully but the hit is ineffective, you might let him go, but if he managed to land a good one and break the bully's nose, then he'd be in trouble?

Let me put it to you this way: if a kid's nose gets broken in school, do you think the school has any choice but to give consequences to the nose-breaker? Consider it logically, and from a legal standpoint. Then imagine the kid with the broken nose is your kid. What do you think should be the result?

[1010011010]

Where did I say "irrefutable evidence," as if such a thing exists?Post #184 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8518490&postcount=184): "If a kid thinks he's in real danger, he should defend himself and hope that he can prove it was self-defense."The school has a legal obligation to protect all the kids and do due diligence figuring out who did what.And how do kids go about filing suit against the school for failure to meet these obligations? And until that gets sucessfully resolved, or more likely gets unsucessfully resolved, the kids are to do what? Just take the abuse?Let me put it to you this way: if a kid's nose gets broken in school, do you think the school has any choice but to give consequences to the nose-breaker? Consider it logically, and from a legal standpoint. Then imagine the kid with the broken nose is your kid. What do you think should be the result?Post #168 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8516201&postcount=168).
The school definitely has a choice... but they're too busy teaching the kids that it's more important to roll over in the face of liability than stand up for what's right because that's hard.

[catsix]

Sam Stone said:
Why does that matter? Are you saying that if a kid is bullied and takes a swing at the bully but the hit is ineffective, you might let him go, but if he managed to land a good one and break the bully's nose, then he'd be in trouble?

Sounds to me like the more effective the self defense is, the more likely it is to result in punishment.

Rubystreak said:
Let me put it to you this way: if a kid's nose gets broken in school, do you think the school has any choice but to give consequences to the nose-breaker?

How is this any different from not punishing an adult who defended themselves from attack? If the mugger gets a nasty bite in his neck, do the cops give consequences to the neck-biter?

What I was taught about defending yourself is that it is acceptable to use enough force to get the person who is attacking you to stop. If that meant breaking the nose of the kid who was pummeling me, that's what was acceptable force. What you can't do is continue to beat the shit out of someone who no longer poses a threat. If that bully is hitting you, and you land one good one and break his nose to end things, that is not wrong.

[Rubystreak]

Post #184 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8518490&postcount=184): "If a kid thinks he's in real danger, he should defend himself and hope that he can prove it was self-defense."And how do kids go about filing suit against the school for failure to meet these obligations? And until that gets sucessfully resolved, or more likely gets unsucessfully resolved, the kids are to do what? Just take the abuse?

Please show where I ever said kids should just take abuse.

I'm really quite sick of this thread. It has been me, alone, repeating the same arguments over and over, making valid points that are ignored in the various emotional/kneejerk responses. I can't convince you that there's any other way than violence to resolve these issues. I can't convince you that there's complexity in these situations. I can't convince you that there's more than one point of view to be considered.

Please, rest in your ignorance and believe that violence is the answer. Teach your children that as well. I hope you are home-schooling them, because I don't know too many teachers or administrators who are going to advocate that response, or who legally or morally can do as you all claim you want them to. Continuing to argue or repeat myself is just a waste of my time. Don't take this as an admission of having lost the argument. Take as fatigue and having better things to do than engage in repetitive and futile argument with people who know they are right and can't see it any other way.

[catsix]

Self-defense is not violence. Any human being is well within his or her rights to use enough force against an attacker as is necessary to stop the attack, no matter what kind of injury this causes for the attacker. It's not violence, and it's not wrong.

[audreyayn]

Er, sorry for the late reply, but I'm only 24 years old. And my little brothers (13 and 15 years old) appear to have more trouble with people getting violent at them than I did, and they're pretty popular. (Of course, they're also boys.) It's weird to me that people say this stuff is unacceptable now, because the impression I get from them is that nothing much has changed.

I think it's much more important that kids be able to judge the situation they're in rather than being taught to react in one particular way all the time. Because my dad's policy of "just ignore them" didn't work, I ended up ignoring him instead. Of course, he really did come from the 50s, when perhaps you didn't hit girls or guys with glasses.

Self-defense doesn't just mean knowing how to fight back. It means being able to judge situations, being able to deescalate confrontations. I found that ignoring bullies meant they kept escalating to the point of violence. One punch and they'd find another target. Isn't that good self-defense?

That might not work in high school as well, granted, but guys were generally hitting on girls, not hitting them, by then.

[Derleth]

One punch and they'd find another target. Isn't that good self-defense?Apparently not if it forces the school administrators to judge who was in the right and who was in the wrong. That's why we have Zero Tolerance now: It's cheap, it's easy, and if it were applied to adult crimes we'd be killing more people than cattle.

Now watch Rubystreak say people who get bullied ought to get a thicker skin and not bother their teachers about it.

[Rubystreak]

Now watch Rubystreak say people who get bullied ought to get a thicker skin and not bother their teachers about it.

:rolleyes:

[Ogre]

This is a beast of a trainwreck, and I don't much care which side of pig-headed obstinacy wins this one, but something's been bugging me since I first saw the title. Namely, "Let's Teach Girls to Put Up with Violent Boys" is odd construction. Makes me think it's some strange mnemonic device on the order of "Every Good Boy Does Fine" for EGBDF. So what concept would LTGTPUWVB stand for (or LTGPUVB, I suppose, if you leave out the "to" and "with")?

[athelas]

Leaven The Grape Pudding Until Very Bored?

Got nuthin'