From: rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson)
Newsgroups: misc.kids
Subject: Victims of Bullies
Date: 13 Oct 92 10:36:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: depsych.qNwksB1w165w

Laura Floom writes:

In article <07DJsB2w165w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM> rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson) writes:
>
>The point is that if she hit her tormentors back and there was a
>cost to them for picking on her, why did they persist?  The
>conventional wisdom is that bullies only pick on kids who don't
>fight back.  There is evidence that they do pick on physically weak
>kids, so if Lynn hit back but her blows didn't hurt, that would
>explain it.  If she could hit hard then there must have been
>another reason why they kept at her.
>
>The really interesting question is: why do you think it was
>admirable of her (and your brother) to fight back when that
>strategy was, by her own account, unsuccessful?

>Can you show me where I said that? I asked why you were
>questioning her memory. I backed it up with my own brothers
>experiences. I was questioning you post.

The tone of your post mentioning your brother's experience seemed
to suggest approval of "fighting back."  You said:

>My brother was a wimp, but a determined one. He was always getting
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>beaten up on in school, and ALWAYS fought back. He got suspended
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>at least twice, and was hurt several times, but he always fought
                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>back. He was pretty strong.
 ^^^^

RC:
>Is it possible that either you didn't hit very hard or that you
>were doing something that made them dislike you.

LF:
>What are you saying? That Lynn deserved it somehow? I cant figure
>out what point you are trying to make here. First you doubt her
>memory of what happened, and then to make her memory fit your
>impression, you are asking the most bizarre questions. Maybe she
>wasnt hitting them as hard as they were hitting her. That still
>doesnt change the fact that she tried to fight back, and continued
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>getting picked on.

The repetition of the phrase "always fought back," especially with
the emphasis added to the "always," along with the use of the
positively charged term "determined," in the text outlining your
brother's experience, then echoed in the "tried to fight back"
phrase in the text describing Lynn's behavior, suggested that you
positively valued the act of "fighting back," presumably seeing it
as more commendable than alternative acts like "running away" or
"crying" or "running to tell the teacher."  Perhaps I was wrong.
Your approval is implied by the style of the text.  Possibly you
were only citing facts.  You will have to confirm or deny the
impression:  Do you approve of "fighting back" even when it is
apparently futile?

>I now se you have posted the same type comments on other posts in
>this thread. The theme seems to be that clearly the people getting
>beat up on seem to be deserving it. You are trying to get the to
>admit that they deserved it for some conduct or another, perhaps
>it was because they didnt fight back hard enough, or because they
>had some sor t of personality disorder. Why one earth is this so
>important to you? You have this idea in your mind about victimized
>children (weak, annoying) and you want everyone who was victimized
>to say "yes, I was victimized because I was too weak, yes, I was
>victimized because I was annoying to them?" That is what I am
>questioning. What will that give you when you get those
>admissions? Why do you want them? What position are you trying to
>take? If what you are saying is ttrue, and that Lynn wasnt hitting
>hard enough, are you saying she whoud have hit harder? Fine, but
>not that practical. If you are saying that Lynn was getting hit
>because of her personality, then are you saying she deserved it?
>
>All I am trying to do is try and figure out your responses to
>people. They seem odd to me. Maybe I am missing something, but I
>really cant figure out what point you are trying to make.

I've been interested in the phenomenon of bullies, bullying and
the victims of bullies for years.  As a matter of fact I even make
my living at it.  I'm a child psychologist and I specialize in
aggression and conduct disorders.  That is, I spend my time with
the bullies.  I do that because I never thought there was very
much the victim half of the dyad could do.  (Everyone knows that
the victims of bullies have problems as adults.  Only lately have
we discovered that bullies grow up to have problems also: often
they become spouse or child abusers, have problems on the job --
especially dealing with bosses -- and frequently have run-in's
with the law, sometime even graduating to adult criminality.  At
any rate their behavior is troublesome enough to their parents --
who get tired of getting called to the school every other day --
that I have no difficulty filling my calender with child
patients.)

However, it is also interesting to look at things from the point
of view of the victim.  The Swedish psychologist Dan Olweus
discovered about 15 years ago from his empirical research in the
schools of Sweden and Norway that the principal characteristic of
the victim is muscular weakness, i.e., they are easy targets.
There is other research suggesting that the victim does other
things that target h/er.  Some American research has suggested
that children with mixed development disorders -- especially
verbal skills outstripping motor and spatial skills -- seem to be
natural victims.

Since there was a thread started here on misc.kids, I thought I'd
jump in.  A long term interest I've had, which developed almost
entirely in the context of bullies and victims, is the role of
pre-packaged myths (narratives) and the prescriptions and
recommendations associated with or contained in them.  The
"fighting back" myth is an interesting one and I think possibly a
very dysfunctional one. I even think it plays a role in the
drive-by shootings and gun-related violence in our schools.  From
the obviously admirable courage of Gary Cooper standing up to Lee
Van Cleef and the other baddies in _High Noon_ to the more
questionable machismo of Clint Eastwoood's "Make my day" in _Dirty
Harry_, to the obvious silliness of Arnold and Sly going around
tearing folks apart, that same meaning element (ideologeme),
"fighting back," seems to be more and more virulently expressed.
The culmination, of course, is the impersonal drive-by shooting.
"Defeating" someone with a gun instead of your fists is sort of
the analog of making music on a tape deck instead of a piano.

--
Richard Carlson
Internet:              rc@depsych.gwinnett.COM
Bangpath:              {rutgers,ogicse,gatech}!emory!gwinnett!depsych!rc
CompuServe:            76605,470
Voice:                 (404) 881-6877