Study Shows Standing Up To Bullies Is Good For You 458
It will come as no surprise to anyone who's ever talked to my grandpa, but a recent study has shown that standing up to a bully is good for you. Although being bullied can be stressful and lead to depression, children who returned hostility were found more likely to develop healthy social and emotional skills. From the article: "In a study of American children aged 11 and 12, researchers from the University of California, Los Angeles, compared those who stood up to aggressors with those who did not. Children who returned hostility with hostility appeared to be the most mature, the researchers found. Boys who stood up to bullies and schoolyard enemies were judged more socially competent by their teachers. Girls who did the same were more popular and more admired by teachers and peers, the researchers found."
Re:Or could it be (Score:3, Interesting)
Good point! I doubt my standing-up would have done anything but result in my self getting hurt.
Re:Or could it be (Score:3, Interesting)
Standing up to a bully and getting hurt is better than just rolling over. Even if you lose, you still stood up to him. And that's worth something.
I'm thinking (Score:2, Interesting)
Study fails the acid test. What's an Adult bully? A mugger/robber/assailant. Is standing up to robbers/assailants/masked figures making demands or taunting @, good for you? The answer should be sometimes. Sometimes it is essential, sometimes it is suicidal. Sometimes it is just smart, that would be when the bully is bluffing, and you are the one with the gun.
Back to children... Its good for you, only if the bully's response to you standing up is something other than engaging you in a fight you can't win, knocking you down on your feet, beating you to a pulp, until ribs are broken, give you black eyes, knock out all your teeth, and stomp groin until it is guaranteed child will not have children later in life.
Maybe study should show standing up to bullies can sometimes be good for them, as long as child knows when to surrender, or makes sure they are actually physically capable of mounting a reasonable defense / in the superior position to physically resist bully / make it not fun for bully to mess with them.
No (Score:5, Interesting)
Some children that have no deficit of mental or emotional strength are taught by their parents that retaliation is wrong, that the meek are blessed, and that they should "turn the other cheek" as Jesus taught. This is reinforced by teachers who punish both students involved in a fight if either one defends himself against the other.
It is a testament to the children's stoicism that they can accomplish this. Unfortunately for them, it looks like doing so may negatively impact their mental and emotional development (yeah correlation is not causation and all that...that's why I said "MAY").
This happened to me. My parents were evangelical nuts. They set me up to go be a victim in public schools, which I was. I have no idea what psychological ramifications that may have for me today...but I DO know that when I started training in martial arts in high school, the bullying stopped, and I never had to hit anyone (which actually kind of disappointed me, because I had a lot of anger I wanted to unleash on the next unsuspecting bully).
Re:Was it good for you? (Score:2, Interesting)
That's the problem: asking kids to differentiate between "alpha male" bullying and "budding psychopath" bullying. Standing up to one gets them to back down, standing up to the other leads to escalation.
I stood up to my bully once. Slugged him in the nose in front of everyone after he yanked me around by my backpack while I was wearing it and dumped all the books out. Felt great for a day, then the next day his friends held me down while he proceeded to put me in the hospital.
Re:Or could it be (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No (Score:5, Interesting)
I had this problem. I was on the wrestling team at a heavier but very fit weight, being a state wrestler. I was also a nerd who greatly enjoyed his computers and D&D. Being a nerd, it was of course appropriate to gleek (spit) me, push, tease mercilessly, and otherwise inflict cruelty.
One day in the 8th grade, a thug hit me on the back of the head. I turned around, headlocked him to the ground, and punched him until he was unconscious. He was an untrained baboon who didn't stand a chance. A teacher came over and broke up the fight.
Like something out of a lame Hughes movie, I was applauded when I entered the cafeteria that day. I was exceedingly popular for the next two weeks - everyone likes seeing a thug get what they deserve. I never had to fight again either, as everyone who laid a finger on me knew what would happen.
Unfortunately, I received the same punishment as the thug who hit me. This is not right. There is distinct disconnect in administration perception and the reality of the situation of what happens to the various social pariahs. The social pariahs are punished for fighting back and therefore the bullies are encouraged. Let me say this more clearly. Zero tolerance policies lead to bullying.
It is my belief that the support of bullying leads directly to situations such as those boys in Columbine. If you cannot fight back, then you must either totally submit to all indignities or rebel against hopeless odds.
There should be a physical violence outlet for the social pariahs against bullies. Bullies need to be confronted, physically, by the social pariahs. It is in the natural order of things that a whipped dog bites back eventually. It is natural and beneficial for the social pariah (and probably for the bully as well) that bullies be beaten in fights.
Re:Schools (Score:3, Interesting)
After thousands of years of basically putting up with bullying as a natural phenomenon of growing up, the American education establishment has discovered that bullying is bad for kids and is actively pushing to prevent it. Google "anti-bullying" and you get dozens of links to anti-bullying programs, slogans, academics doing studies on bullying (one guy from Yale announced that victims of bullying are at higher risk of thinking about or attempting suicide).
Parents who grew up in the 1960s or 1970s are now pretty much in control in most school districts, and now they are bringing their politically correct methods to deal with bullying.
I was victimized a lot as a kid, though I don't remember ever contemplating suicide; I did a lot of fantasizing about skewering my tormentors in various nasty ways, however. Then I went and took karate when I was about 13, at an old fashioned school where the Japanese sensei would wander around the class with a long stick and whack us when we didn't do things right. And lo and behold, the bullying stopped. All it took was for me to suddenly become more self-confident and unafraid of the bullies, and they sensed it as a dog senses you are not afraid, and they went off in search of easier prey.
Would I have been better off if the teachers had intervened, instead of me going off and handling it myself? Of course not! What utter nonsense. I learned how to deal with life, and that lesson has stayed with me ever since.
I think schools should maintain vigilance for kids at risk of suicide, of course, and probably more studies need to be done to find the causes of suicide. It's easy to claim that bullying causes suicides just because there's a statistical correlation, but proving causation is quite another thing. A child who has suicidal tendencies from day one may need something more than just protection from suicide, and in fact maybe learning to deal with bullies would be quite therapeutic. For example, send them to martial arts training. I think all girls should take martial arts anyway, learn to protect themselves on the cruel streets of American cities. Martial arts is great for kids anyway; it teaches self-discipline, confidence, sportsmanship, honor, all that good stuff that they don't seem to really teach in the schools or in the home either.
Prisoner's Dilemma (Score:5, Interesting)
I always felt that bullying was an iterated prisoner's dilemma [wikipedia.org] situation. It's well-known that the optimum strategy for the iterated prisoner's dilemma is cooperate first, then tit-for-tat [wikipedia.org] thereafter. In this context, "tit-for-tat" would mean fighting back.
Re:Or could it be (Score:5, Interesting)
run a marathon . . . get[] nothing in return
In typical Slashdot fashion, anti-exercise trolls come out of the woodworks!
I did plenty of physical activities that damaged my body growing up and even I recognize the difference. Being opposed to getting kids to run marathons or compete in sports that are damaging is not anti-exercise. Marathons are pretty hard on the body, high impact on the joints. My cousins played basketball and several other sports and now they hobble around barely able to walk properly while not even middle aged yet. Calling opposition to marathons anti-exercise is like calling people who don't like poison ivy anti-plant people. A lot of us encourage healthy exercise while still not encouraging kids to exercise in ways that likely damage them permanently.
Re:Schools (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No (Score:3, Interesting)
Most wars cause famine, because fields are destroyed, able bodied farmers are drafted into military and die and most of the industrial resources of the warring countries are diverted towards the military complex instead of improving food production. So your argument is invalid. Fighting does not actually solve famine, it just makes sure that military gets fed and that's all.
only fight back if you can survive (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Stand up, or get beaten down (Score:4, Interesting)
A bully used to pick on my son. I got tired of him coming home from school with bruises and scratches, so I taught him how to punch. At random times, I'd hold up my open hand and yell "hit me" and he'd smack my hand as hard as he could. He thought that was pretty fun, but we stopped once he good good enough that it started to hurt.
Then, I told him that if the kid ever touched him again, my son was to punch him as hard as he could in the nose. I told him not to talk, not to negotiate, not to try to come up with some witty comeback, but to smack him in the snout. Next, I told his teacher about the plan, and she hinted that it was about time someone did it.
The boy slapped my son. My son put the boy on the ground. Since that day, the bully never picked on my son or any other kid, and no one else has ever messed with my boy.
It would be great if everyone could just play nicely, but since some people won't do it voluntarily, we have to be prepared to make them if need be.
Boxing! (Score:2, Interesting)
Now, in more "enlightened" times, we would never do this. Instead, we make sure the kids can't resolve conflicts until one day someone flips out and does the murdering. We even go on to suggest how this should happen by having mock attack "lock downs".
I'm glad someone is starting to see reason.
Re:No (Score:4, Interesting)
Speaking personally, I had an issue with a bully in junior high once (understand that this guy was one of those monsters...back when the rest of us were benching 120 lbs. maybe, this guy and one other were already benching well over 200), when he decided to make the rather asinine demand that no one could use the showers next to him in the locker room. Being as I was not inclined to inconvenience myself by kowtowing to ridiculous demands, I used a neighboring shower and was struck by the bully hard enough that folks out in the main locker room heard it. I didn't give him the reaction he was expecting, however, and instead just turned to him and asked if he was done. He was a bit taken aback at how I handled myself, and let me go on my way after that. From then on, both he and everyone else gave me a lot more respect since they knew that if I hadn't flinched when facing him, I wouldn't flinch in lesser situations that were common every day. I never had to face a bully again, and actually became friends with him over time, strangely enough.
I never had to hit him, but I was never a victim either. He and I both knew that. I would say that I responded meekly (though not by your definition), since being meek doesn't mean being a simpering fool or someone without strength. It's about having the strength but demonstrating the self-control to not use it unnecessarily. It's a measure of applied wisdom and humility or a quiet confidence. You can be hit without being a victim, just as you can never be hit and yet still be a victim. There definitely are times and places where hitting back is the appropriate response, I won't deny that. But to suggest that it's the only appropriate response is entirely incorrect. It's a last resort that is rarely necessary, and I hold that kids who learn to make the alternatives work are the better for it, since they learn confidence and self-assurance, rather than learning merely how to retaliate when pushed too hard.
Re:Or could it be (Score:2, Interesting)
It is a perversion of language to claim that American racism of the 1950s and 60s [wikipedia.org], or the British repression of India [wikipedia.org], was "non-violent".
Now, in the case of the American civil rights struggle, contrary to the popular narrative King and his nonviolence was not the only game in town; the militancy of the Black Panthers and similar groups played an important role. And in the case of India, the British Empire was exhausted; it was easier to make the cost of maintaining rule over India too high for it to bear, than it had been at any time since the Battle of Plassey. Non-violence resistance will not work against psychopaths of unlimited resources, no; and against the non-violent, resistance would never be necessary in the first place.
Somewhere in between, though, is the line where non-violent resistance can either appeal to the conscience, or can raise the price of oppression, sufficiently to win.