Top 5 bullying myths: What you don't know about bullying

[Wesley]

I thought this might be interesting to discuss.

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Family/2012/0912/Top-5-bullying-myths-What-you-don-t-know-about-bullying/

 

 

1. Bullies lash out because they have low self-esteem.

You’ve heard this theory before: The classroom bully acts aggressively toward others as a way to compensate for the fact that, deep down, he really doesn’t like himself. This may be a satisfying explanation for bad behavior, but numerous studies show it to be untrue. Indeed, research shows bullies feel just fine about themselves; some studies suggest that they have excess self esteem and feel better than others. (Some researchers speculate that this is one of the ways they rationalize their behavior.) This doesn’t always mean that bullies lead a blithely carefree life, however. The Centers for Disease Control has found that bullies are more likely than other students to experience violence at home.

2. Zero-tolerance policies against bullying decrease bullying

“Zero tolerance” policies became popular in the 1990s to deal with a host of school – and, for that matter, criminal justice – challenges, from drug use to violence to sexual harassment. Usually a zero tolerance policy includes an automatic penalty for a given infraction, regardless of who is involved or what the extenuating circumstances may be. The concept is that if kids know they’re going to get kicked out of school for bullying, they just won’t do it. This approach is still favored by many anti-bullying groups and websites. 

But researchers say there’s no evidence that zero-tolerance policies lower the incidence of bullying. There are, however, a number of studies that show a correlation between zero tolerance and increased aggression and harassment at school. Why? The American Psychological Association’s task force on zero tolerance said in 2008 that these policies did little to standardize punishment and did not take into account the best developmental approach for teenagers. Other researchers have said that zero tolerance does little to build needed compassion.

The other side of the anti-bullying spectrum is not necessarily always better, however. A comprehensive international review of anti-bullying initiatives by The Campbell Collaboration research network found that peer-based, or peer mentoring, anti-bullying programs often increased rates of victimhood, as well.

3. Technology is the problem. Cyberbullying is the main form of bullying these days.

Social media, the Internet and cell phones have certainly changed the bullying landscape. Children today have a far harder time finding respite from bullying; what might have once taken place only at school can now follow kids home on their cell phones, Facebook pages, and e-mail accounts. The Internet also provides a slew of opportunities for people to be mean, from slam boards (no-holds-barred college gossip sites), to fake Facebook accounts. Add to that some scary statistics – such as the National Crime Prevention Council’s finding that more than 43 percent of teenagers have been the victims of cyberbullying – and it would be easy to focus anti-bullying attention on-line.

But many researchers say that the vast majority of bullying still takes place in person – in the classroom, the schoolyard, and the cafeteria. Much of the on-line bullying, they say, is an extension of what starts face to face; studies also show that students report in-person bullying to be more damaging.

Many of the high cyberbullying statistics may come from the way different studies define “bullying,” which in some surveys is described as anything from a mean text message to an unauthorized forward to another teen blocking the victim from his or her Facebook page. (Academic and legal definitions tend to require more components for behavior to qualify as bullying.) A recent survey by the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project found that 15 percent of teens who use social networking sites say they have been the target of mean or cruel behavior there; 69 percent say their peers are mostly kind to one another.

4. Everyone is equally at risk of falling victim to bullying.

While there is no single profile of a bullying victim, there are characteristics that make a child more likely, on average, to become victimized. Researchers say that socially marginalized children, whether because of sexual orientation or disability, are more likely to be bullied. Bullying also “plays out differently across gender and age, ethnicity and race,” professors Danah Boyd and John Palfrey wrote for “The Kinder & Braver World Project: Research Series,” a 2012 synthesis of research on bullying published by Harvard University’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society.  

There are also situations that cause a child to become a more likely target for bullies, some researchers say. Children who are new to school or who do not have friends are more likely to be bullied than those with a more secure social network.  

None of this is to say that bullying won’t happen to anyone; many researchers simply urge schools and policy makers to recognize these risk factors.

5. Bullying is a major cause of suicide and school violence.

There have been a number of high-profile, tragic, incidents of bullied children committing suicide. School violence – most recently the shooting at Maryland’s Perry Hall High School  – has also been regularly linked to bullying, usually with the explanation of a bullying victim seeking revenge. But researchers say the connection between both school shootings and suicide is far more tenuous than popular media reports would have us believe. The media coverage of the 1999 Columbine High School shootings put the idea of the loner, bullied students taking out their anger through violence; author Dave Cullen, who was one of the reporters covering the story, spent the next decade researching his book “Columbine,” untangling the myths of trench coats and outsiders he says his media colleagues created.

“We all knew what happened there, right?” he wrote about Columbine in a New York Times soon after this summer’s mass shooting in  Aurora, Colo. “Two outcast loners exacted revenge against the jocks for relentlessly bullying them.
“Not one bit of that turned out to be true."

As far as suicide: While research has found that victims of bullying do face serious psychological challenges and is associated with an increased risk of self harm, there are typically other mental and situational factors also underlying suicides. The Centers for Disease Control found that suicide was the third leading cause of death for youth between ages of 10 and 24; it lists a number of risk factors, including depression, alcohol abuse to easy access to firearms.

[PatrickC]

Yeah, the trouble is that the bullies get to decide what bullying actually is of course.

[The Wall]

I dont like articles likes these. They say other articles and things are wrong, which is kay, but they dont offer what the real reasons are or for what reasons they suspect. Anway, of course forcing bullies to be in school and then forcing them to take classes is going to increase their bullying. Theyre bullying them themselves! I was bullied with grades, whistles, humiliarions, abd being ignored in class. I was forced to be there hello? Is there any wonder why this isnt a way to build compassion with bullies? The peraon writing this article probably doesnt understand that you cant force compassion anymore than you can force consent from someone. You have to be equal with someone to have compassion for them, and id anything, the bully is trying to get cokpassion the same way the school is, innthat light, just with less "its for your own good.".

[Wesley]

Yeah, the trouble is that the bullies get to decide what bullying actually is of course.

Well obviously "official bullying" is not included. Just like all official definitions of terrorism have an extra clause in them that excludes the state.

[CrazyCanuck]

The page say it's not found and it's Christian site btw.  

[Wesley]

The page say it's not found and it's Christian site btw.  

Link fixed.

 

The Christian Science Monitor is relatively well-respected and a secular publication that is owned by a church.

 

Here is the info on their FAQ page if you are interested in reading it:

 

 

FAQ

1. Is the Monitor a religious publication?

No, it’s a real news organization owned by a church – The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, Mass., USA. Everything in the Monitor is international and US news and features, except for one religious article in the weekly magazine and Daily News Briefing – a version of which has appeared each day since 1908, at the request of the Monitor’s founder, Mary Baker Eddy.

In an age of corporate conglomerates dominating the news media, the Monitor’s combination of church ownership, public-service mission, and commitment to covering the world gives the Monitor a uniquely independent voice in journalism. In fact, unlike most US news organizations, the Monitor does not rely primarily on wire services, like AP and Reuters, for its international coverage. We have have one of the strongest networks of global correspondents in the news industry. Each year, we typically report stories from more than 350 places in 100 countries around the world.

2. Why does the Christian Science church own a news organization?

One answer might be found in a story the Monitor’s Washington bureau chief, David Cook, related in a talk several years ago:

"Consider this case. It is 1907. An elderly New England woman finds herself being targeted by Joseph Pulitzer’s New York World. She is 86 years old and holds some unconventional religious beliefs that she expounds in a book, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. The book becomes a bestseller, making her wealthy and a well-known public figure.

The New York World decides she is incapable of managing her own affairs and persuades some of her friends and her two sons to sue for control of her estate. Although Boston and New Hampshire newspapers and major wire services interview this woman and find her competent, the New York World is unrelenting. The lady in question finally is taken to court where the case against her is dropped.

And the next year this woman, Mary Baker Eddy, founds The Christian Science Monitor.

Given her experience with the press, it is not all that surprising that she sets as the Monitor’s goal 'to injure no man, but to bless all mankind.' In one of life’s little ironies, Joseph Pulitzer went on to endow the Pulitzer prizes for journalistic excellence.

And Mrs. Eddy's newspaper has gone on to win seven Pulitzer Prizes so far, the latest in 2002 for editorial cartooning.

Mrs. Eddy had been thinking about a newspaper for a long time before 1907. Way back in 1883 she wrote: 'Looking over the newspapers of the day, one naturally reflects that it is dangerous to live, so loaded with disease seems the very air. These descriptions carry fears to many minds, to be depicted in some future time upon the body. A periodical of our own will counteract to some extent this public nuisance; for through our paper we shall be able to reach many homes with healing, purifying thought.'"

3. Does the Monitor have an agenda?

We are not about promoting any specific set of policies, actions or ideologies. The founder of the Monitor was convinced that what reaches and affects thought ultimately shapes experiences and moves our world forward. News, therefore, should be thought-provoking, trustworthy, and engaging. We seek to give our readers the information and multiple perspectives they need in order to develop their own constructive conclusions.

4. If the Monitor's news is secular, why is "Christian Science" in its name?

It's about honesty and purpose. We do not hide the fact that the Christian Science church has stood behind this publication for more than 100 years. While some might argue that not having those words would give it wider appeal, to remove them would mislead people about the organization that supports the Monitor. Eddy knew this from the outset. She insisted, against strong opposition from some of her advisers and church officers, that the words “Christian Science” should be in the paper’s name.

5. Do church leaders determine or influence the Monitor’s editorial content?

The Board of Directors of the First Church of Christ, Scientist, has oversight over Monitor editorials and editorial cartoons, but rarely edits content. The board selects the Monitor’s editor, whose staff chooses stories they feel are most meaningful to our readers.

6. Why doesn’t the Monitor endorse political candidates?

The Monitor’s editors believe readers should decide for themselves who is best qualified for public office. Through our extensive political coverage from Capitol Hill and in races around the country, we strive to provide all the information necessary for voters to make political decisions most appropriate for them, their communities, and the nation.

7. How would I find out more about the Monitor’s founder and Christian Science?

For more about Mary Baker Eddy, the pioneering woman who founded the Monitor, see The Mary Baker Eddy Library for the Betterment of Humanity at www.marybakereddylibrary.org.

Visit www.christianscience.com for information about Christian Science and our publisher, The First Church of Christ, Scientist. Here you can learn more about Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, the premier work by Monitor founder Mary Baker Eddy. You’ll also find articles, discussions, and events showing how people are using spiritual ideas in their daily lives.

Regardles, this still is a story that is out there, and it coming from Christian Scientists might be an examination point in itself.

[CrazyCanuck]

Ok I know you didn't say this but I have read that people on here think religion is evil.  Scare mongering ( you will go to hell for your sins) , manipulating and brain washing people.  Now you're telling these people are honesty, truthful and far from the things I have been told.  Thanks?

[Wesley]

Now you're telling these people are honesty, truthful and far from the things I have been told.

I said nothing of the sort...

[CrazyCanuck]

I said nothing of the sort...

Either they are or they are not.  Now please explain.  

[Wesley]

Either they are or they are not.  Now please explain.  

I have no idea. I just found the article and posted it for people to comment on. I didn't say whether I supported the ideas in the article or not or supported the organization or not.

 

It could be an onion story for all I care and it may still be interesting to discuss...

[Pepin]

The low self-esteem I think can be found in some bullies. Eh, perhaps this self-esteem isn't the right term. I've noticed that people who tend to latch onto a particular form of bullying tend to be really afraid of that being lobbed back at them.

 

A guy at my high school for instance liked to bully the victims by calling them gay and harping on that. I heard from a friend that there were rumors in the 7th grade that he and someone else were gay for each other, and when I brought this up to him he went a little nuts. It was like the prospect of someone calling him gay was a sword in the gut. It honestly really threw me off because his reaction was so unexpected.

 

A big issue with bullies I have is that they aren't at all creative or intelligent with their harassment. In my experience, it tended to be the same theme and insult all of the time, nothing clever at all. I understand this isn't exactly a good aspect to complain about, but the monotony and brain deadening insults really drove me a bit crazy.

 

Something I'm really reluctant to share, but will anyway is that I have an urge to bully them back and to do it in the proper way. I really don't like enticing these thoughts because my brain begins to generate far too many ideas. The plans I start devising are really rather genius and would be far more effective than the standard bullying. Fortunately this is an aspect of my personality that I don't entertain. It does come out in some minor ways when I am under a lot of stress, not really all that bad though.

[PatrickC]

I really have to wonder about the cyberbullying claim. Not saying it doesn't happen. But why aren't those organisations that highlight this issue not teaching parents the tools to lessen the impact, such as block features. I get the impression they are more interested in censoring the internet than they are about helping children. Sorry if that went a bit off topic.

[CrazyCanuck]

I really have to wonder about the cyberbullying claim. Not saying it doesn't happen. But why aren't those organisations that highlight this issue not teaching parents the tools to lessen the impact, such as block features. I get the impression they are more interested in censoring the internet than they are about helping children. Sorry if that went a bit off topic.

Because kids can get around firewalls, and things like Opendns services that help sites not even resolving.  The problem is that unless you have pretty good knowledge about these things it's will be very difficult.  If they can't install any software due to not having admin access they can download tails which is a live cd with tor proxy.  If the parents are smart enough to disable cd/dvd burning the child can go to a library, friend or order one off the internet.

 

 

 

http://forumaboutproxy.com/general-discussions/lesson-5-how-to-bypass-firewall-and-see-blocked-web-sites-(for-advanced-users)/

 

https://tails.boum.org

 

 

 

https://www.torproject.org