River: Bullying

[mdlbear]

Phoebe Prince, South Hadley High School's 'new girl,' driven to suicide by teenage cyber bullies Via a chain starting with Megan Kelley Hall, through seanan_mcguire to admnaismith.

The Daily News headline is misleading: there was physical bullying, too. And I don't like its tone. This one from Slate is better. There are too many to list, or even to look through. Some of the comments are harrowing.

Didn't we learn from Columbine? Evidently not. Most victims are like Phoebe -- they take it out on themselves.

I didn't get physically bullied, as far as I can remember. It was all verbal -- they called it "teasing". And luckily there were other geeks in my junior high and high school -- we called ourselves the Chess and Bridge Club and holed up in the Latin teacher's classroom before school started. Thank goodness, too, for tracking -- we mostly had our classes with the other geeks. Unlike some people whose stories I've seen, my parents never took the bullies' side, but they didn't have much advice for me, either.

The scars are still there, when I think to look for them. Mostly I never thought about them, which is probably the biggest scar of all. I still don't know where they all are.

Comments

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Semantically closely related to the "just ignore them" Big Lie, yes.

[acelightning.livejournal.com]

There's a subtle but important difference. "Just ignore them" is very general, and rather passive. "Don't give them the satisfaction of getting a reaction from you" appeals to me more (or it would if it were true), because it implies that there is a "moral high ground" you can reach by refusing to react.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Both prescribe the same action (or lack of action) and falsely imply that this will solve the problem.

I agree that they differ, but in my opinion, they differ in that "ignore them" is more neutral "and don't give them the satisfaction" implies more directly that you the victim are giving them a reward. This could I guess be more "satisfying" if they decide to quit, but since they are very unlikely to decide to quit, its actual effect is more directly victim-blaming. Like saying "it's your fault for reacting to the pain."

[acelightning.livejournal.com]

There's an underlying assumption that the tormentors do it because they are sadists who enjoy it when their victims cry and beg them to stop. This leads to the idea that they will stop bothering if they don't get the desired reaction, and also that it's somehow more "noble" (less "cowardly"?) to suffer in silence and not react at all. There are a few things wrong with this concept, though. For one thing, it appears that most bullies don't enjoy inflicting pain so much as they enjoy the feeling of power over their victims; furthermore, they may be doing it mainly because the "popular kids" do it, and they want to be one of the popular kids. And, of course, if the victim doesn't react, the bully is more likely to escalate the attacks than to stop.

[acelightning.livejournal.com]

(LJ seems to have eaten my first attempt at a reply.)

It's naively believed that bullies behave that way because they are sadists - because they enjoy seeing their victims in pain, crying and begging them to stop. Therefore, if they don't get the "reward" of their victims' reactions, they won't bother any more. There's also a pervasive feeling that it's someohow more "noble" (less "cowardly"?) to suffer in silence and not react at all. Unfortunately, bullies are rarely just simple sadists; it's not their victims' pain they enjoy, it's the feeling of raw power-over. And, of course, if their victims don't respond, they're more likely to increase their attacks, not stop them.