Bachmann's America

[Askold]

I plan to raise my kids to defend themselves to a reasonable point. But violence should only be used as a defense against violence. When it comes to insults, I will encourage them to just ignore them completely. Because if they don't react at all, the bullies will lose interest.

No they won't. Speaking from experience. Still, the lessons are, I think, correct ones.

Yeah I'm going to have to agree that ignoring bullies won't always help, they might actually like to pick on someone who does not retaliate. Besides waiting for them to get bored could take years...

[sandman]

In my experience, which is considerable, violence begets violence which begets more violence which begets more violence...the cycle is endless. Unless someone is brave enough to end it.

There is a difference between "defending yourself" and "attacking someone." Two years ago I heard sudden chaos in the hallway and went out to find a 16 year old boy beating the shit out of a 17 year old. The 17 year old was on the floor, bleeding from his head, curled into a ball and trying to protect his face. The 16 year old was promptly expelled.

The next day his parents were at the school with a lawyer threatening a lawsuit because, and I'm not making this up, their son was just "defending himself."  Apparently the 17 year old had pushed him hard in the hallway. The 16 year old threw a punch, which the other boy returned, and within 2 seconds the older boy was on the ground being beaten. Neither his parents nor the lawyer could grasp the fact that this was not self defense. They absolutely insisted that because the other boy pushed their son first, their son was justified in all of his subsequent actions. The case went to trial, and they lost. That night they were on the local TV news bemoaning how their son's "rights" were being abused, how the school district was "shielding a bully," how their son was the new Rosa Parks.

There is a difference between "defending yourself" and "attacking." If you have a valid non-violent option and you choose the violent one....you are not defending yourself. If you continue the violence after the danger to you has passed....you are not defending yourself. If you feel you have some kind of responsibility or obligation to retaliate for every slight against you....you are not defending yourself. If you have the opportunity to escape the situation and you choose to remain in it.... you are not defending yourself. But so many parents teach their children that these situations are valid cases of self defense. And the violence continues.

[Lithp]

Not saying this is what happened in that incident, but you can get caught up in the moment. In late elementary school or something, I was criticized for essentially beating up a younger kid on the bus. What I tried to communicate, & what the driver failed to grasp, was that he'd been holding my arms so a kid who WAS older than me could beat the shit out of me. When I got loose, I was mighty pissed off, & attacked the one that was closer. Also, I was using him as a shield against the other guy. Was the threat dissolved after I repositioned my seat? You know, that honestly hadn't occurred to me at the time.

To this day I don't feel bad. That cocky little shit deserved what he got. Hell, I regret not punching the driver in the 'nads for not breaking that shit up earlier, then trying to paint me as some kind of bully because I hit a poor widdle snowflake.

[sandman]

Well, certainly you can let your emotions overwhelm you, especially when you are a kid. The reaction is absolutely understandable, but it is not "defending yourself." If you are no longer in danger it's "retaliation."

[Lithp]

Not sure what the legal recourse would be in that situation. Fortunately, I did not have to find out. Apparently, the school/bus agency didn't try anything because my sister had a lot of issues with that driver, & they were not willing to go for a Round 2.

[RavynousHunter]

One of the things my dad taught me that's stuck with me was this...

If you're backed into a corner, and can't walk away, its okay to fight back.  But, that fighting back stops when your opponent has lost the will or ability to fight.

"Only fight in defense of yourself or others," were his words, I believe.

[The Right Honourable Mlle Antéchrist]

No they won't. Speaking from experience. Still, the lessons are, I think, correct ones.

Yeah I'm going to have to agree that ignoring bullies won't always help, they might actually like to pick on someone who does not retaliate. Besides waiting for them to get bored could take years...

And therein lies the rub: There isn't a lot the victim can do to discourage the bullies. Showing anger gives them satisfaction, ignoring them gives the impression that you're an easy target who won't fight back (and is much easier said than done, I might add), telling a teacher results in little action on the faculty's part & retaliation from the tormentors etc., etc. It's very much a lose-lose situation.

[RavynousHunter]

That's why you play either Confused Guy or Chronic Laughter Guy.  Confuse your enemy!  If you can't make them genuinely fear you, you can at least leave them wondering...people don't like being confused, and they might just avoid you.

[Kain]

Sorry, what did religion ever do to you? And I mean religion, not religious people. Think people here of all places should know Christians come in all shades and prejudging someone on that they're religious is just as bad as prejudging on that they're not cisgender and straight.

The Abrahamic religions, at least, say that I'm an abomination to be put to death. Doubly so, in my case, since my nature predisposes me to atheism.

And yes, I'm aware that there are moderates, especially on this very forum. I'm not against faith; if you want to seek spiritual guidance in whatever way you wish, so be it. You have your beliefs, I have mine.

However, having been the target of such hatred myself, I have zero empathy for these people. If these people wound up in jail for this (and I could certainly make a case for it), not only would I not shed a tear, but I'd probably cheer it on.

[Mechtaur]

The Abrahamic religions, at least, say that I'm an abomination to be put to death. Doubly so, in my case, since my nature predisposes me to atheism.

If the "abomination" part you are referencing to is the "don't lay with a man as you would a woman" part, you know that the word used that is translated to abomination is the word for unclean.

Plus, they only apply to those in the religion (going by Judaism and Islam, Christianity has never agreed with itself).

[Kain]

The Abrahamic religions, at least, say that I'm an abomination to be put to death. Doubly so, in my case, since my nature predisposes me to atheism.

If the "abomination" part you are referencing to is the "don't lay with a man as you would a woman" part, you know that the word used that is translated to abomination is the word for unclean.

Plus, they only apply to those in the religion (going by Judaism and Islam, Christianity has never agreed with itself).

Yeah, but you know what I mean.

[Mechtaur]

The Abrahamic religions, at least, say that I'm an abomination to be put to death. Doubly so, in my case, since my nature predisposes me to atheism.

If the "abomination" part you are referencing to is the "don't lay with a man as you would a woman" part, you know that the word used that is translated to abomination is the word for unclean.

Plus, they only apply to those in the religion (going by Judaism and Islam, Christianity has never agreed with itself).

Yeah, but you know what I mean.

Yeah, I'm just saying, don't hate an entire group of religions because some managed to twist the words and meanings.

[Osama bin Bambi]

In Leviticus, the word often mistranslated as "abomination" is toevah, which is more accurately translated as "ritually unclean" for Jews. So if you're not a religious Jew, it doesn't even apply. Christian fundies keep getting it so, so wrong.

http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/section05.html

[Caitshidhe]

The problem I have with the 'IGNORE BULLIES AND BULLYING!' theory of teaching children to cope with harassment is that there isn't any other provision taken in most schools--at least not in the ones I dealt with. My last primary school (the one in the US that I went to for my last three years) called it the 'De-Bugging' system and still use the same set of guidelines to this day. I remember them quite well: 1, Ignore it; 2, Walk Away; 3, Tell a grownup. Other schools have similar systems in place. The problem with this is that it puts ALL responsibility on the victim. None of the things children are advised to do directly impact the problem: the bully.

It honestly is a good idea to do what you can to give the impression that the bully hasn't succeeded in their goal, which is to hurt or upset you, by ignoring it or underreacting. But even when a school DOES take the unusual step of trying to deal with the bully him/herself, they don't usually do it very effectively--in all the cutesy informational videos I remember watching or stories I had to read about it, the end usually consisted of the bully and victim becoming good friends once they put their differences aside. That always leaves the impression that you either hate someone or want to be their buddy. It's okay not to be friends with everyone, but it ISN'T okay to bully anyone.

I just wish I had a better solution to suggest. Unfortunately for me, my only avenue was to fight back--in the end it did work somewhat, and people were less willing to torment me once they knew I could and WOULD seriously fuck them over. I guess I'm lucky because my dad was himself bullied in school and he also got to the end of his rope and snapped and had one good, winning fistfight with each of them that ultimately stopped the bullying completely. He didn't like that he had to do it, and he didn't like that I'd done it either, but he understood why I did it and didn't punish me for it.

[Eniliad]

In Leviticus, the word often mistranslated as "abomination" is toevah, which is more accurately translated as "ritually unclean" for Jews. So if you're not a religious Jew, it doesn't even apply. Christian fundies keep getting it so, so wrong.

http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/section05.html

Here's the thing, though: Not many people know that. I didn't know that until I read it just now. So even semi-moderate fundies think that's literally what the bible is saying: that gays are an abomination to be put to death. Mostly because, for worse, that's what's printed these days. See, that's the bitch: even if you're right, with historical context and mistranslations kept in mind, 99% of believers do not realize it. And you could say, "that's believers, not the religion itself!" I say, when the vast majority of people believe it, that's what the religion is. That is the face of modern Christianity. Or Judaism, or Islam. Whatever.

The Bible as written in proper context isn't that bad. Historically, I might have more tolerance for the Abrahamic religions. But modern religion, the beliefs practiced today, are actually less tolerant than their year-0 counterparts, and that is why I have animosity towards it today.