Languish.org

I didn't realize how bad America was on this until I lived in Korea and traveled around some.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/why-are-we-criminalizing-childhood-independence/2015/01/15/bf9da446-9ccb-11e4-a7ee-526210d665b4_story.html

QuoteWhy are we criminalizing childhood independence?

By Petula Dvorak Columnist January 15 at 12:01 PM

Good thing I don't live in Montgomery County. Because the cops, apparently, would be at my door.

They showed up at the Silver Spring home of Danielle and Alexander Meitiv last month, followed by Child Protective Services workers. And CPS was back again this week. And at their kids' school, too.

Their crime?

The Meitivs let their kids, 10 and 6, walk home alone from a park in downtown Silver Spring. Now they are being investigated for child neglect.

The case represents one of those huge culture clashes in parenting today. On one side, the free-range parents who roamed their neighborhoods with front-door keys around their necks when they were growing up and who want the same kind of childhood for their kids. On the other side, the hyper-vigilant parents who can't imagine letting their kids walk to school or do much of anything else without full parental supervision.

The criminalization of childhood independence is a cultural shift as significant as cellphones. And it's insanity.

"Don't you realize how dangerous the world is?" asked one of the four police officers who showed up at the Meitivs' home on Dec. 20, after police received a call that two children were walking alone in downtown Silver Spring.

The police swooped in and picked the kids off Georgia Avenue, where they were in the middle of their one-mile walk home from the park. One mile? Yes, it made me pause, too.

My big letting-go moment, which I wrote about in August, was allowing my two boys, 10 and 7, to walk about 500 feet to the corner store on Capitol Hill. They had the dog and my cellphone. And I'll admit I was a wreck the whole time.

So the idea of the two of them walking a mile down Georgia Avenue, through downtown Silver Spring, seems as brave and improbable as those guys who soar through mountains in flying-squirrel suits.

I couldn't do it. But the Meitivs have been working on this independence thing a lot longer than I have. They are science-minded people. He is a physicist at the National Institutes of Health; she is a climate science consultant for the World Bank. They look at parenting decisions based on science.

"Every parenting decision is about risk management," Danielle told me as Rafi, the 10-year-old, practiced his cornet in the background. "The truth is, child abductions by strangers are as rare as alien abductions. Maybe not that. But they are much rarer than car accidents. Putting your child in a car is the most dangerous thing you do every day."

That's true. About 300 children are injured every day in car accidents. An average of three kids a day are killed while riding in a car. Would we argue that's child neglect, because parents should know the risks of the road?

Probably not. And given that statistic, Danielle didn't think it was a horrible risk to let the kids play outside by themselves. "We're willing to take the risk because we understand the odds," she said.

Then, their kids started walking around the block in their quiet neighborhood near Montgomery College's Silver Spring campus.

"Oh. I can't even remember the first time. It just wasn't that big a deal," Danielle told me when I tried to swap nervous parent stories.

Her children have played alone at the playground across the street and in their own front yard for a couple of years now. So, to them, the mile-long walk wasn't that much of a stretch.

When you take each piece of the story — a concerned citizen seeing two little kids alone in the hustle and bustle of Silver Spring and calling the cops; police receiving the report and taking it seriously (imagine the stories we'd be writing right now if the kids were in distress and the cops just dismissed it); and laws that demand a Child Protective Services investigation whenever there's a report of neglect — each action makes some sense.

Montgomery officials said they couldn't comment on this case in particular, but they did say there is a law against leaving children younger than 8 inside without the supervision of someone who is at least 13. The law, the Meitivs argue, doesn't say anything about being alone outdoors.

It's also curious that the county schools will provide transportation, according to their Web site, to elementary school kids who live "beyond a mile" from school or have some extraordinary circumstance. So, does that mean the schools are cool with kindergartners walking a mile to class?

Since the incident, Child Protective Services has returned to make the parents sign a "safety plan," in which they promised to not leave their children unsupervised. They interviewed the kids at their school and asked to inspect the family's home for other signs of neglect.

Whoa. This has been a nationwide pattern, thumping parents who are caught not hovering.

Over the summer, we heard about a Florida mom arrested for letting her 7-year-old walk to the local park and about a mother locked up because her 9-year-old was playing at the neighborhood park in South Carolina.

Not only are we placing unreasonable demands on parents to be with their children 24/7, but we are stunting the natural development of independent humans.

It's a different world today, you say? Why, yes, it is. Since 1993, the number of children younger than 14 who are murdered is down by 36 percent. Among children ages 14 to 17, murders are down 60 percent. Fewer than 1 percent of missing children are abducted by strangers or even slight acquaintances, according to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.

It only seems scarier because we know so much more. From across the nation, stories of missing children are delivered to the palms of our hands every day. In the old days, it seemed so much safer because the tragic stories were largely restricted to hometown papers and local newscasts.

Are the statistics dropping because we're so much more careful? Maybe. But probably not, given the huge number of child assaults that weren't reported in the past because of the social stigma they carried.

The Meitivs are scheduled to meet again next week with CPS workers, who they hope will understand their decisions were a matter of parenting philosophy, not neglect.

"All of this fear is misplaced. The biggest fear our society should have is that we're raising kids who don't know how to be independent," Danielle said. "When do you think this independent child will emerge like a genie from a bottle? It takes time."

She's right. No, most parents aren't going to let their kids walk a mile alone on a heavily traveled road. That's a little extreme.

But letting go in little steps is a human experience that has to accompany our return to sanity.

QuoteWhy are we criminalizing childhood independence?

By Petula Dvorak Columnist January 15 at 12:01 PM

Good thing I don't live in Montgomery County. Because the cops, apparently, would be at my door.

They showed up at the Silver Spring home of Danielle and Alexander Meitiv last month, followed by Child Protective Services workers. And CPS was back again this week. And at their kids' school, too.

Their crime?

The Meitivs let their kids, 10 and 6, walk home alone from a park in downtown Silver Spring. Now they are being investigated for child neglect.

Times sure have changed from when I was that age. Wow.

 :mad: Fuck we used to play outside and run the neighborhood @ 10 y/o. Do homework (yea right) and not be back til dinner.

Quote

My big letting-go moment, which I wrote about in August, was allowing my two boys, 10 and 7, to walk about 500 feet to the corner store on Capitol Hill. They had the dog and my cellphone. And I'll admit I was a wreck the whole time.

This is why. People like this. And they vote.

Quote from: 11B4V on January 15, 2015, 08:15:42 PM
Times sure have changed from when I was that age. Wow.

No shit.  But we've known that for a while, haven't we?

QuoteSince 1993, the number of children younger than 14 who are murdered is down by 36 percent. Among children ages 14 to 17, murders are down 60 percent. Fewer than 1 percent of missing children are abducted by strangers or even slight acquaintances, according to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.

Just imagine what the numbers would look like if those kids weren't allowed concealed carry permits.

Look, when you have an unsurveilled society, you're going to get ad hoc solutions like that, and it's not going to be good for anybody.

Because : Street gangs & no stay at home moms anymore.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 15, 2015, 08:23:36 PM

Quote from: 11B4V on January 15, 2015, 08:15:42 PM
Times sure have changed from when I was that age. Wow.

No shit.  But we've known that for a while, haven't we?

QuoteSince 1993, the number of children younger than 14 who are murdered is down by 36 percent. Among children ages 14 to 17, murders are down 60 percent. Fewer than 1 percent of missing children are abducted by strangers or even slight acquaintances, according to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.

Just imagine what the numbers would look like if those kids weren't allowed concealed carry permits.

The further tottering of society down the road to oblivion.

Like seeing a bunch of high school kids sitting at a table, nobody's talking, because they are texting.

Quote from: 11B4V on January 15, 2015, 08:57:24 PM
Like seeing a bunch of high school kids sitting at a table, nobody's talking, because they are texting.

Little shits probably didn't even check their voice mail, either.  Civilization-destroying little shits.

Strength in numbers

Quote from: 11B4V on January 15, 2015, 08:57:24 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 15, 2015, 08:23:36 PM

Quote from: 11B4V on January 15, 2015, 08:15:42 PM
Times sure have changed from when I was that age. Wow.

No shit.  But we've known that for a while, haven't we?

QuoteSince 1993, the number of children younger than 14 who are murdered is down by 36 percent. Among children ages 14 to 17, murders are down 60 percent. Fewer than 1 percent of missing children are abducted by strangers or even slight acquaintances, according to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.

Just imagine what the numbers would look like if those kids weren't allowed concealed carry permits.

The further tottering of society down the road to oblivion.

Like seeing a bunch of high school kids sitting at a table, nobody's talking, because they are texting.

Texting: not a form of communication.

Quote from: 11B4V on January 15, 2015, 08:57:24 PM
Like seeing a bunch of high school kids sitting at a table, nobody's talking, because they are texting snapchatting pictures of their sex organs to each other.

FYP.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 15, 2015, 09:04:19 PM

Quote from: 11B4V on January 15, 2015, 08:57:24 PM
Like seeing a bunch of high school kids sitting at a table, nobody's talking, because they are texting.

Little shits probably didn't even check their voice mail, either.  Civilization-destroying little shits.

Don't get me started with schools and their "Everybody's a winner attitude bullshit." Dealing with an issue now with my 9 y/o and a bully. We handled bully's differently back in our day. I'm letting the Hippies try to deal with it, but my patience is wearing thin.

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 15, 2015, 09:08:19 PM

Quote from: 11B4V on January 15, 2015, 08:57:24 PM
Like seeing a bunch of high school kids sitting at a table, nobody's talking, because they are texting snapchatting pictures of their sex organs to each other.

FYP.

See, I cant even stay current with those fuckers.  :mad:

There is no need to note the difference. Snapchat is just a different way to text.

On one hand we encourage the wives to find work, and to have children at the same time.

On the other hand we criminalise leaving children at home without adult supervision. 

This just doesn't make sense to me. 

Well, daycare is usually considered the preferred alternative.

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 15, 2015, 09:33:34 PM
Well, daycare is usually considered the preferred alternative.

That's not financially feasible for most working class couples.  Also, in a society where people are increasingly expected to work until 8 or 9 in the evening, the service hours of most daycare services are insufficient. 

Quote from: 11B4V on January 15, 2015, 09:12:17 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 15, 2015, 09:04:19 PM

Quote from: 11B4V on January 15, 2015, 08:57:24 PM
Like seeing a bunch of high school kids sitting at a table, nobody's talking, because they are texting.

Little shits probably didn't even check their voice mail, either.  Civilization-destroying little shits.

Don't get me started with schools and their "Everybody's a winner attitude bullshit." Dealing with an issue now with my 9 y/o and a bully. We handled bully's differently back in our day. I'm letting the Hippies try to deal with it, but my patience is wearing thin.

Let me guess, you beat up the other kid who was bullying you with his superior penmanship.

Quote from: Monoriu on January 15, 2015, 09:37:09 PM

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 15, 2015, 09:33:34 PM
Well, daycare is usually considered the preferred alternative.

That's not financially feasible for most working class couples.  Also, in a society where people are increasingly expected to work until 8 or 9 in the evening, the service hours of most daycare services are insufficient.

You're telling me... I hear about this dilemma from my clients all the time, so I'm well aware of the problems posed.

Just giving the dominant social expectation, versus leaving them alone.  And in fairness, there are subsidized day cares and subsidized pre-school, as well as kindergarten and elementary school once the kids hit 6 r so.

Quote from: Razgovory on January 15, 2015, 09:38:54 PM

Quote from: 11B4V on January 15, 2015, 09:12:17 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 15, 2015, 09:04:19 PM

Quote from: 11B4V on January 15, 2015, 08:57:24 PM
Like seeing a bunch of high school kids sitting at a table, nobody's talking, because they are texting.

Little shits probably didn't even check their voice mail, either.  Civilization-destroying little shits.

Don't get me started with schools and their "Everybody's a winner attitude bullshit." Dealing with an issue now with my 9 y/o and a bully. We handled bully's differently back in our day. I'm letting the Hippies try to deal with it, but my patience is wearing thin.

Let me guess, you beat up the other kid who was bullying you with his superior penmanship.

Don't even know what your saying.

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 15, 2015, 09:49:30 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on January 15, 2015, 09:37:09 PM

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 15, 2015, 09:33:34 PM
Well, daycare is usually considered the preferred alternative.

That's not financially feasible for most working class couples.  Also, in a society where people are increasingly expected to work until 8 or 9 in the evening, the service hours of most daycare services are insufficient.

You're telling me... I hear about this dilemma from my clients all the time, so I'm well aware of the problems posed.

Just giving the dominant social expectation, versus leaving them alone.  And in fairness, there are subsidized day cares and subsidized pre-school, as well as kindergarten and elementary school once the kids hit 6 r so.

I hear that the most common solution is grandparents.  That's assuming you have good relations with them. 

Quote from: Monoriu on January 15, 2015, 09:58:17 PM

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 15, 2015, 09:49:30 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on January 15, 2015, 09:37:09 PM

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 15, 2015, 09:33:34 PM
Well, daycare is usually considered the preferred alternative.

That's not financially feasible for most working class couples.  Also, in a society where people are increasingly expected to work until 8 or 9 in the evening, the service hours of most daycare services are insufficient.

You're telling me... I hear about this dilemma from my clients all the time, so I'm well aware of the problems posed.

Just giving the dominant social expectation, versus leaving them alone.  And in fairness, there are subsidized day cares and subsidized pre-school, as well as kindergarten and elementary school once the kids hit 6 r so.

I hear that the most common solution is grandparents.  That's assuming you have good relations with them.

Yea lets dump the kids with the grand parents for free.

I blame cnn and the like. 24 hours of scary news will give you a "think of the children" mentality.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FKtHubqa.jpg&hash=86e666f807f069caef70b07af4679814222e9df7)

QuoteHow children lost the right to roam in four generations

By DAVID DERBYSHIRE

Last updated at 01:03 15 June 2007

When George Thomas was eight he walked everywhere.

It was 1926 and his parents were unable to afford the fare for a tram, let alone the cost of a bike and he regularly walked six miles to his favourite fishing haunt without adult supervision.

Fast forward to 2007 and Mr Thomas's eight-year-old great-grandson Edward enjoys none of that freedom.

He is driven the few minutes to school, is taken by car to a safe place to ride his bike and can roam no more than 300 yards from home.

Even if he wanted to play outdoors, none of his friends strays from their home or garden unsupervised.

The contrast between Edward and George's childhoods is highlighted in a report which warns that the mental health of 21st-century children is at risk because they are missing out on the exposure to the natural world enjoyed by past generations.

The report says the change in attitudes is reflected in four generations of the Thomas family in Sheffield.

The oldest member, George, was allowed to roam for six miles from home unaccompanied when he was eight.

His home was tiny and crowded and he spent most of his time outside, playing games and making dens.

Mr Thomas, who went on to become a carpenter, has never lost some of the habits picked up as a child and, aged 88, is still a keen walker.

His son-in-law, Jack Hattersley, 63, was also given freedom to roam.

He was aged eight in 1950, and was allowed to walk for about one mile on his own to the local woods. Again, he walked to school and never travelled by car.

By 1979, when his daughter Vicky Grant was eight, there were signs that children's independence was being eroded.

"I was able to go out quite freely - I'd ride my bike around the estate, play with friends in the park and walk to the swimming pool and to school," said Mrs Grant, 36.

"There was a lot less traffic then - and families had only one car. People didn't make all these short journeys."

Today, her son Edward spends little time on his own outside his garden in their quiet suburban street. She takes him by car to school to ensure she gets to her part-time job as a medical librarian on time.

While he enjoys piano lessons, cubs, skiing lessons, regular holidays and the trampoline, slide and climbing frame in the garden, his mother is concerned he may be missing out.

She said: "He can go out in the crescent but he doesn't tend to go out because the other children don't. We put a bike in the car and go off to the country where we can all cycle together.

"It's not just about time. Traffic is an important consideration, as is the fear of abduction, but I'm not sure whether that's real or perceived."

She added: "Over four generations our family is poles apart in terms of affluence. But I'm not sure our lives are any richer."

The report's author, Dr William Bird, the health adviser to Natural England and the organiser of a conference on nature and health on Monday, believes children's long-term mental health is at risk.

He has compiled evidence that people are healthier and better adjusted if they get out into the countryside, parks or gardens.

Stress levels fall within minutes of seeing green spaces, he says. Even filling a home with flowers and plants can improve concentration and lower stress.

"If children haven't had contact with nature, they never develop a relationship with natural environment and they are unable to use it to cope with stress," he said.

"Studies have shown that people deprived of contact with nature were at greater risk of depression and anxiety. Children are getting less and less unsupervised time in the natural environment.

"They need time playing in the countryside, in parks and in gardens where they can explore, dig up the ground and build dens."

The report, published by Natural England and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, also found that children's behaviour and school work improve if their playground has grassy areas, ponds and trees.

It also found evidence that hospital patients need fewer painkillers after surgery if they have views of nature from their bed.

Tim, there's a item in the Ebola thread you might care to read.

Quote from: HVC on January 15, 2015, 10:02:56 PM
I blame cnn and the like. 24 hours of scary news will give you a "think of the children" mentality.

I blame VSTOL parents.

I blame parents. I mean, 30 years ago or so, if a child was moderately bullied while out on playground, the parent would tell the kid how to avoid it or fight back. Now they call the police. If a child was getting bad grades at school, the parent would blame the kid; now they blame the teacher. If a child got a bruise because of running through school corridors, the kid would get spanked. Now the school is being sued.

With the attitude from parents like this, the rest of the society is looking to avoid responsibility for a kid getting hurt by putting it back where it belongs - on the parents' shoulders. It's just that these were the parents who started to change the rules by blaming everybody else whenever something bad happened to their little shit, not the society.

Quote from: Martinus on January 16, 2015, 12:58:48 AM
I blame parents. I mean, 30 years ago or so, if a child was moderately bullied while out on playground, the parent would tell the kid how to avoid it or fight back. Now they call the police. If a child was getting bad grades at school, the parent would blame the kid; now they blame the teacher. If a child got a bruise because of running through school corridors, the kid would get spanked. Now the school is being sued.

With the attitude from parents like this, the rest of the society is looking to avoid responsibility for a kid getting hurt by putting it back where it belongs - on the parents' shoulders. It's just that these were the parents who started to change the rules by blaming everybody else whenever something bad happened to their little shit, not the society.

I am with you on the first para. Not sure what you mean in the second.

I can not stand bullies and don't know really why. I hate those mother fuckers (bullies), fuck I hate those pieces of shit. I was never bullied or a bully in school, even though I was big for my age. Not katmai big, but tall wise.

What I meant is that the society, as a whole, is making more rules for parents because otherwise other people may be liable if something happens to a child.

But parents started this trend by demanding higher standard of care for their own children from other people, such as teachers, policemen etc.

Quote from: Martinus on January 16, 2015, 02:15:31 AM
What I meant is that the society, as a whole, is making more rules for parents because otherwise other people may be liable if something happens to a child.

ah, gotcha

The worst thing that ever happened to modern society is the erosion of the concept of acceptable losses.

Quote from: 11B4V on January 16, 2015, 01:56:10 AM
I can not stand bullies and don't know really why. I hate those mother fuckers (bullies), fuck I hate those pieces of shit. I was never bullied or a bully in school, even though I was big for my age. Not katmai big, but tall wise.

I sometimes wonder whether bullying is/was a bigger problem in the US, or whether it is the issue of perception. Don't get me wrong, I dislike bullies as well. But I think it is something that the society these days overreacts to.

When I was at school, I was a nerdy kid with a light speech impediment, who didn't like girls, was bad at sports, did not have many friends and had parents who were better off than most. My parents also weren't helicopter parents, so I walked to and from school on a daily basis (it was a walk of approximately 20 minutes in a small town area). My school was also a public school, with kids from all social backgrounds (we had a bunch of juvenile delinquents or children of alcoholics, petty criminals etc.). And yes, I was in a couple of fights, and sometimes was called names, but I don't recall bullying as some sort of a traumatic experience (definitely nothing that would push me anywhere near suicide or even switching schools).

So I wonder whether people exaggerate their experiences with bullying, or whether those who actually seriously suffer from it (and end up killing themselves or contemplate that) have psychological problems to begin with or more serious issues at home (such as child abuse and the like).

If that is bullying then it was 100% prevalent in the schools I attended. What we called bullying back then was the consistent bad treatment that some poor fucker got for being different, usually one or two of these per class of about 30.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 16, 2015, 02:32:43 AM
If that is bullying then it was 100% prevalent in the schools I attended. What we called bullying back then was the consistent bad treatment that some poor fucker got for being different, usually one or two of these per class of about 30.

Yeah, but it was rare, and frequently these poor fuckers had not-so-great personalities, too. :P

But what I mean is that, if you listen to public people who are in their late 20s or early 30s these days, it looks like as if everybody was severely bullied as a child. And everybody treats bullying as if it was one of the top social problems, right up there with poverty, world hunger and climate change. At least that's my perception as I watch more gay media and with "It Gets Better" and that type of projects, it seems prevalent. Maybe the mainstream heterosexual perception is different.

Being a "victim" is being a "winner" nowadays, we will reach peak victim soon enough  :P

Quote from: Martinus on January 16, 2015, 02:29:43 AM
When I was at school, I was a nerdy kid with a light speech impediment, who didn't like girls, was bad at sports,

You could just say you were a gay kid. More succinct.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 16, 2015, 03:02:06 AM

Quote from: Martinus on January 16, 2015, 02:29:43 AM
When I was at school, I was a nerdy kid with a light speech impediment, who didn't like girls, was bad at sports,

You could just say you were a gay kid. More succinct.

This being Languish, this would have caused a dozen of motherfuckers challenging that as I wasn't openly gay/didn't realise I was gay, etc.

I was bullied mercilessly as a child. :(  The psychiatric thought that it might have caused me to go mad. :lmfao:

You were supposed to have done this, Raz.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffc05.deviantart.net%2Ffs70%2Ff%2F2011%2F237%2Fc%2F1%2Fbttf__george_mcfly__s__punch_by_willardstilles-d47twzs.gif&hash=ae0dc7a14ab020cf0de5e247fa75d9da22d208b9)

Does anyone else find it remarkable how quickly this has happened? In the 1990s I was free to go into central London by myself (an hour's journey from the suburbs) and walk around my part of town as much as I wanted, provided it was not too late. I also made the bus and walking journey to school every day on my own, including during winter where it would be dark by home-time.

When we lived in Israel as diplomats, I essentially was given the freedom of Tel Aviv provided I was back before dark.

In Indonesia as diplomats, I was given a travel budget to take taxis where and when I wanted, and my dad was fine with me going to bars at the age of 15 and 16 provided I didn't turn up at home wasted. Privileges were temporarily suspended when a friend of mine threw up over my parent's car in the garage after the headmaster's daughter had given us a lift home. (She was battered as well.) The punishment was two hours of tennis coaching the next day. Tropical heat + hangover = not good.

I wonder to what extent the difference is explained by the generation of the parents. Both mine were born in the 1940s; the helicopter parents seem to be of a later breed?

Discuss.

My parents were born in the 1950s, and gave me quite reasonable leeway. At 10 years old I was allowed to go to school unaccompanied, which was around 10 blocks from my home. Same for most of my classmates. I could go and play to a nearby park after school, etc... without problems as long as I was at home before dark.

At 12-13 I was allowed to hitch the train and go to downtown Barcelona (I lived in the suburbs), go to the movies, etc... with a 10pm curfew. That was later extended and then lifted when I was 16, as long as I gave notice of where I'd be (usually I'd lie).

Bars, etc... were never discussed, but my parents honestly believed I was a saintly soul that never frequented dens of sin until I turned up wasted at age 19 after a GF had left me. But it was too late then.

I KNOW I'm going to be an helicopter parent though, I have a tendency to worry over stuff.

I'm not going to do this to my sons. The oldest one is 8 and always walks a short distance by himself to school. I had free run of the neighbourhood almost for as long as I can remember. When I spent summers with my grandparents in a small town in eastern Iceland, as a child, the whole place was my playground, just show up for supper on time.

My son has been making the journey to school (10 min walk, 20 min train, 15 min walk) by himself since he was 11 . Loads of other kids at his school are doing similar. People are more protective over 8 years olds, sure, but I don't think there's much difference between my generation and my parents by the time they get to 10 or 11.

Question for current parents: whatever your thoughts on how much freedom your children have, do you feel pressure for other parents? Like a sense of disapproval when they learn you let your kids walk to school, play outside unsupervised, and so on?

Yes.

I'm a very laisse faire parent. I see the disapproval in other parents(especially my sister in law & her fiance) every time I let my kids go down the stairs alone.

 I'm about the youngest person on Languish, I think- there was more or less unlimited freedom for me when I was a kid. I remember in high school not coming home for days with no contact, walking about the city in middle school, and going to the park to climb trees and throw pennies when I was very small. I never chafed at any sort of rules, and while I had more license than most people I knew, my friends tended to be quite at liberty themselves.

More liberal types, and northern transplants, were far more apt to have restrictions. There was a red-haired maiden from the deeps of the Midwest I cared for who was kept on the sort of strange leash that is being discussed here, but that was the far-and-away exception.

I more or less had your standard Leave it to Beaver type childhood.  I could wander all day without any worries.  But it was all within the confines of a gated community that had a pool, tennis courts, lots of wooded area and a fishing pond.

Quote from: Lettow77 on January 16, 2015, 09:27:15 AM
a red-haired maiden from the deeps of the Midwest I cared for who was kept on the sort of strange leash

Elaborate.

Quote from: Martinus on January 16, 2015, 12:58:48 AM
I blame parents. I mean, 30 years ago or so, if a child was moderately bullied while out on playground, the parent would tell the kid how to avoid it or fight back. Now they call the police.

I can't agree with this, not at all.

Bullying is fucking bullshit, and asking children to deal with it simply doesn't work. If child A knows how to handle the bully, whether by temperment or good instruction, then the bully simply moves to another child who cannot handle it well. And there will eventually be a victim.

Bullying, pretty much by definition, is a behavior that children (neither the bully or the victim) are equipped to handle properly. "The good old days" were not good, they fucking sucked and it was largely just tolerated, or punished in a fashion that did nothing to solve the problem, since the punishment often gave attention and fucked up child social status to the bully anyway.

My parents moved constantly when I was young, and so I was the "new kid" probably a dozen times between first and 12th grades. I dealt with my share of bullies, and eventually figured it out, because of course it is pretty simple really. You fight back, and they move on to someone else. But I hated that by doing so I was just dooming some other poor kid to being bullied. Now, there were some schools I went to where this was not a problem because the adults would not tolerate it and the culture of the school reflected that, and there were some where it was tolerated because "kids will be kids". The difference was stark.

Now, my kids go to schools were bullying it simply not tolerated. If some kid actually became physically violent with another in the manner I saw plenty of times while I was in school, you are right - the cops may very well get involved. And you know what? THEY SHOULD! Assault is not ok as long as the person being assaulted or doing the assaulting is a minor. Certianly calling the cops is not the first escalation step for a routine shoving match type fight, but if some 16 year old starts beating on some kid? Damn right that is criminal, and should be treated as such, if necessary.

The only thing as a kid I hated more than bullies were the adults who just let it happen because they were too fucking lazy to do their jobs properly. "Kids will be kids" is an excuse to not do your job.

ALl that being said - I do totally get the entire kids and how much freedom we give them issue.

And I am totally guilty of it - I have a 14 year old and a 11 year old, and we certainly do not allow them the freedom I had as a child at all.

My daughter has a really good friend who lives in the next housing development over. Maybe 1/3rd of a mile away, and we drive her there and back when she wants to spend time with her. I feel pretty ridiculous doing it. But I do it, and I would in fact worry about her otherwise. There is a busy road between them...but so what? I managed to cross about a million busy roads without getting killed when I was her age.

So I don't know. It is a tough thing, because you create your own sense of what is "dangerous" and then instill that in your kids. Lanie would not even ASK to walk over there herself, for that matter, so it also creates a sense of entitlement/dependency as well.

Of course, when I was a kid, I was one of 5, and there was one car in the family, so if I wanted to go somewhere, I was taking the bus, walking, or biking (assuming my bike had not been stolen and sold for pot by one of my older brothers that year). Now we have two kids, and mostly there is one of us around who can give a ride when needed, so that is pretty much the default.

Less kids per family, more protective?

More cars routinely available, so more likely to just drive them ourselves?

More visible media for every missing kid (often for very good reasons) so either a more exaggerated sense of the danger, or maybe even a more *accurate* sense of the danger?

I don't know, really.

I think it is simply a social change.

If parents have lots of kids, thete are many stay at home moms, and all the kids in a neighbourhood are free to roam 'till dark, letting your own kid do so makes sense - your society is set up for that.

If, on the other hand, parents tend to only have one or two, there are few stay-at-home parents, and other families do not let their kids roam, it doesn't so much - society is simply not set up for that. If your kids do roam, there won't be a pack of their friends also out playing, there won't be parents looking out, they will be very alone.

Quote from: Berkut on January 16, 2015, 10:11:02 AM
Bullying is fucking bullshit, and asking children to deal with it simply doesn't work. If child A knows how to handle the bully, whether by temperment or good instruction, then the bully simply moves to another child who cannot handle it well. And there will eventually be a victim.

Not always the case.  I think it's at least as likely that standing up to the bully (especially in front of other kids) will put him in his place.  Can't imagine getting the cops involved unless it gets really, really serious.

We're never going to get rid of bullying.  Best we can do IMO is teach our kids how to effectively deal with it.

Disagree. I've seen it happen too many times to accept that the bully will stop being a bully because one of his potential victims stands up to them. Doesn't work that way, if it did there would be a lot less bullying.

"Not always the case" means there isn't a solution. Because sometimes people handle bullies doesn't mean there isn't a problem, since it certainly means that many times they do not, because, you know, they are CHILDREN.

You might as well say the best way to handle drug dealers outside schools is to teach our children to say no to them - that is obviously true and must be done, but we don't just accept them because it isn't a problem for the majority of kids who know how to respond.

Further, statements like "We are never going to get rid of it" are specious - so what? We are never going to get rid of rape, that doesn't mean we should just accept it. We can, and have, vastly cut down on the incidents of bullying, and plenty of study's have shown that it can be effectively controlled if the adults who are responsible for these environments do their job and don't just cheerfully accept some children beating up and tormenting other children as "kids will be kids" and "we can never stop it, so why try" or "kids should be taught how to handle this!".

Best we can do is teach our kids how to handle it AND create a environment and culture in schools where it is absolutely NOT tolerated - and that should include getting the police involved if it rises to criminal assault, which it does at times when lazy ass parents and teachers chuckle and say things like "Oh, those kids will be kids! Nothing we can do about it! Sure wish the parents would teach the victims how to handle it better! Golly!"

Clickhole (for those uninitiated, it's The Onion's sister site ;)) has a heartwarming story:

QuoteThe Kids At School Bullied Him Just For Being Different. So He Changed.

Posted Dec. 4, 2014

For a long time, middle school was not easy for 12-year-old Alex Lambert. He didn't fit in with the other boys in his class, which made him a target for constant bullying and ridicule. Every day, Alex was afraid to go to school because he knew his classmates would torment him just for being different.


After months of harassment, Alex decided that enough was enough, and that it was time to make sure that he never got bullied again. So, he did something incredibly brave: He completely changed everything about himself to stop being bullied.

Wow.

Alex's courageous stand against bullying was a complete success. He says that, ever since he entirely altered the fundamental aspects of his identity that were making him the target of abuse, the kids at school don't pick on him nearly as much as they used to.

"I used to love listening to One Direction and Taylor Swift, but then everyone laughed at me because that's music for girls. So, I stopped listening to that music," said Alex, who maintains he now only listens to the normal boy music the rest of his male classmates listen to. "I also asked my mom to buy me a lot of new clothes, because the other kids would push me in the hallway, and I think it was because of the way I dressed."

Amazing!

As if these brave steps to combat bullying weren't enough, Alex has also stopped reading comic books, because being seen with them would usually result in a barrage of ridicule and derision, and he has started wearing basketball jerseys to school to give his classmates the impression that he's interested in the same things that they are.

One story in particular perfectly sums up Alex's inspiring campaign against bullying:

"I used to take dance lessons after school because it was fun and I was good at it," said Alex. "But then this kid Ryan Cutler told me that dance lessons are for 'friendless fags.' I wanted to make sure nobody said something mean like that to me ever again, so I don't take dance lessons anymore."

Since that day, Alex, who now goes straight home after school, has not been called any hurtful names. Looks like this kid definitely knows how to put a stop to mistreatment and injustice!

Sometimes all it takes is one brave little boy to completely restore your faith in humanity. Alex, thank you for your courageous stand against bullying. It's always nice to hear a story with a happy ending!

It's obviously satire and I am not saying people should always conform, but I also think we sort of moved from one extreme (conform or die) to the other (be whoever the fuck you want to be). I think school environment is a very good preparation for adult life, in that it teaches us that we always have to negotiate between expressing ourselves in the way we want and responding to how others treat us.

Sure, if there is a sociopathic kid who hurts other kids then he is the problem. But if "bullying" involves all the kids making fun of you, then perhaps part of the blame is on you.

Quote from: derspiess on January 16, 2015, 10:44:34 AM

Quote from: Berkut on January 16, 2015, 10:11:02 AM
Bullying is fucking bullshit, and asking children to deal with it simply doesn't work. If child A knows how to handle the bully, whether by temperment or good instruction, then the bully simply moves to another child who cannot handle it well. And there will eventually be a victim.

Not always the case.  I think it's at least as likely that standing up to the bully (especially in front of other kids) will put him in his place.  Can't imagine getting the cops involved unless it gets really, really serious.

We're never going to get rid of bullying.  Best we can do IMO is teach our kids how to effectively deal with it.

I wouldn't bother. I just realised we had this discussion before and it always ends with Berkut building his strawman where bullying is something akin to maiming and raping (as opposed to making fun of) and then proceeds as usual. :berkut:

That's also why I asked what bullying means in American schools. As I said, from my school days, "bullying" meant, usually kids making fun of other kids, and calling them names. And then I said that when you listen to today's American celebrities, it's as if everyone was severely bullied which left them traumatised. So it must be a cultural thing I guess.

Quote from: derspiess on January 16, 2015, 10:44:34 AM

We're never going to get rid of bullying.  Best we can do IMO is teach our kids how to effectively deal with it.

I disagree with this - in my kid's school, bullying is much less of an issue than it was in my day - mainly because the society of kids themselves has changed. There is much less tolerance and support for it, so it doesn't happen as much. It appears that, if bullying makes *you* the outsider subject to social disapproval - kids won't do it as much.

In kids society, there will always be strong elements of conformity (and a stuggle against that), social disapproval, etc. What changes, is how this is expressed.

I agree with Berkut. If the victim stands up to a bully, either by beating him or by making the bullying take more effort than the pleasure derived from the act is worth, the bully will normally just find another victim. That may be good for the one kid, but it hasn't solved the problem. This is why teachers are supposed to be the "responsible adults" in a school environment.

Case in point; one of the years (the Fifth formers IIRC, GCSE age) in my House at Senior School when I moved up from the Junior School had a ground floor room. At lunchtimes they used to amuse themselves by grabbing a new pupil and forcing them out of their window on to the conveniently placed, muddy flower bed below it*. When they tried it with me it took them 25 minutes or so (ie. almost the entire post-meal lunch break) to manage it. They never tried it with me again. Whereas another person in my year ended up going through that window multiple times. They didn't stop, they just moved to an easier target.

*This may have been a "tradition" or "rite of passage". On the other hand, it didn't continue the next year and this year in question was also the year where one of our House Prefects demonstrated his "toughness" to all of us by pouring lighter fluid on his hand and setting it alight in the Common Room, and another of the Prefects was the person who taught me the useful phrase "Shit for Brains" (he was inordinately fond of using it too.)

Quote from: Berkut on January 16, 2015, 10:57:30 AM
Best we can do is teach our kids how to handle it AND create a environment and culture in schools where it is absolutely NOT tolerated - and that should include getting the police involved if it rises to criminal assault, which it does at times when lazy ass parents and teachers chuckle and say things like "Oh, those kids will be kids! Nothing we can do about it! Sure wish the parents would teach the victims how to handle it better! Golly!"

I agree completely.  If I punch Marti in the face I get arrested no matter how much he richly deserves it.  I do not punch him in the face because society condemns dealing with unreasonable people that way and so I must content myself with ridiculing the many obtuse positions he takes.  If society provided tacit approval for physical violence in dealing with someone like Marti many people would probably have beaten me to it and so the price of the plan ticket would probably not be worth it - although a close call.

Executive summary - Marti can safely argue for the kids will be kids approach because the law fully protects him and he will have no children, nieces or nephews who might require that same protection.

As far as I can remember, bullying was much less of a problem at my school as opposed to fights. We had a lot of fights that would take place both in school and outside of it. And many of us would leave our classes to watch them. :hmm:

Btw, I also agree with B.

Ok, maybe you guys went to schools populated by sociopaths.  :P

To me "bullying" means kids calling each other a "faggot" or making fun of each other's speech impediments and clothes, not engaging in BDSM rituals.

As parents and adults, how do you identify and quantify bullying? How do you know the context to the roughing - for example, that a punch or a push during recess is a one off or part of a systematic targeting of a victim that includes verbal attacks and continues into lessons and after school? As we grow older, we stop seeing things as kids at some point, does that mean we might fail to notice problems that are still there?

I'd also say there's a difference between being near the bottom of the pecking order and being bullied. Easy to confuse the two.

Edit: I'm not sure the fighting-back method always works. I saw enough kids in one of my rougher schools get picked on substantially even when they hit back. Also, schools with strong discipline can end up making this a counter-productive strategy. I nearly got chucked out of one school for 'getting into fights' that were really me trying to stand up to a bully who saw me as an easy target.

Quote from: garbon on January 16, 2015, 11:22:20 AM
As far as I can remember, bullying was much less of a problem at my school as opposed to fights. We had a lot of fights that would take place both in school and outside of it. And many of us would leave our classes to watch them. :hmm:

We had a lot of fights as well.  That was just a more extreme form of bullying.  Rare was the fight when the combatants were equally matched.  Although there were a lot of kids who did try to pick fights with me to prove how tough they were.  I was normally the one who broke the fights up when a bully was beating the crap out of a smaller/more timid kid.  And as for the notion that bullies will just move on if a kid stands up to them - in my experience the bully just comes back with more friends.

Quote from: Warspite on January 16, 2015, 11:24:44 AM
As parents and adults, how do you identify and quantify bullying? How do you know the context to the roughing - for example, that a punch or a push during recess is a one off or part of a systematic targeting of a victim that includes verbal attacks and continues into lessons and after school? We stop seeing things as kids at some point, does that mean we might fail to notice problems that are still there?

I'd also say there's a difference between being near the bottom of the pecking order and being bullied. Easy to confuse the two.

Edit: I'm not sure the fighting-back method always works. I saw enough kids in one of my rougher schools get picked on substantially even when they hit back. Also, schools with strong discipline can end up making this a counter-productive strategy. I nearly got chucked out of one school for 'getting into fights' that were really me trying to stand up to a bully who saw me as an easy target.

You raise a very important point.  Bullying has moved to the internet.  The kinds of bullying that occur now are much more harmful than what we witnessed as kids.  Victims of this new kind of bullying are killing themselves.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 16, 2015, 11:25:31 AM

Quote from: garbon on January 16, 2015, 11:22:20 AM
As far as I can remember, bullying was much less of a problem at my school as opposed to fights. We had a lot of fights that would take place both in school and outside of it. And many of us would leave our classes to watch them. :hmm:

We had a lot of fights as well.  That was just a more extreme form of bullying.  Rare was the fight when the combatants were equally matched.  Although there were a lot of kids who did try to pick fights with me to prove how tough they were.  I was normally the one who broke the fights up when a bully was beating the crap out of a smaller/more timid kid.  And as for the notion that bullies will just move on if a kid stands up to them - in my experience the bully just comes back with more friends.

Oh most of the fights I saw weren't like that. Mostly they were evenly matched / a majority were whites vs. brazilians fights.

There was shortly after I left a fight between two girls who both were hooking up with the same guy. Girl on girl violence led to one girl having a glass bottle broken across her face. :(

Quote from: Martinus on January 16, 2015, 11:23:06 AM
Ok, maybe you guys went to schools populated by sociopaths.  :P

To me "bullying" means kids calling each other a "faggot" or making fun of each other's speech impediments and clothes, not engaging in BDSM rituals.

Naw bullying can also include inviting someone to off themselves.  I am not surprised you have a weak understanding of what bullying might be.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 16, 2015, 11:28:06 AM

Quote from: Warspite on January 16, 2015, 11:24:44 AM
As parents and adults, how do you identify and quantify bullying? How do you know the context to the roughing - for example, that a punch or a push during recess is a one off or part of a systematic targeting of a victim that includes verbal attacks and continues into lessons and after school? We stop seeing things as kids at some point, does that mean we might fail to notice problems that are still there?

I'd also say there's a difference between being near the bottom of the pecking order and being bullied. Easy to confuse the two.

Edit: I'm not sure the fighting-back method always works. I saw enough kids in one of my rougher schools get picked on substantially even when they hit back. Also, schools with strong discipline can end up making this a counter-productive strategy. I nearly got chucked out of one school for 'getting into fights' that were really me trying to stand up to a bully who saw me as an easy target.

You raise a very important point.  Bullying has moved to the internet.  The kinds of bullying that occur now are much more harmful than what we witnessed as kids.  Victims of this new kind of bullying are killing themselves.

:lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:

It is much more harmful because it no longer involves beating up but now involves words on the internet? I rest my case.

:lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:

Quote from: Martinus on January 16, 2015, 11:33:03 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 16, 2015, 11:28:06 AM

Quote from: Warspite on January 16, 2015, 11:24:44 AM
As parents and adults, how do you identify and quantify bullying? How do you know the context to the roughing - for example, that a punch or a push during recess is a one off or part of a systematic targeting of a victim that includes verbal attacks and continues into lessons and after school? We stop seeing things as kids at some point, does that mean we might fail to notice problems that are still there?

I'd also say there's a difference between being near the bottom of the pecking order and being bullied. Easy to confuse the two.

Edit: I'm not sure the fighting-back method always works. I saw enough kids in one of my rougher schools get picked on substantially even when they hit back. Also, schools with strong discipline can end up making this a counter-productive strategy. I nearly got chucked out of one school for 'getting into fights' that were really me trying to stand up to a bully who saw me as an easy target.

You raise a very important point.  Bullying has moved to the internet.  The kinds of bullying that occur now are much more harmful than what we witnessed as kids.  Victims of this new kind of bullying are killing themselves.

:lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:

It is much more harmful because it no longer involves beating up but now involves words on the internet? I rest my case.

:lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:

Look up Amanda Todd.  And the all too many other teens who have killed themselves because of cyber bullying.  Idiot.

Quote from: garbon on January 16, 2015, 11:29:23 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 16, 2015, 11:25:31 AM

Quote from: garbon on January 16, 2015, 11:22:20 AM
As far as I can remember, bullying was much less of a problem at my school as opposed to fights. We had a lot of fights that would take place both in school and outside of it. And many of us would leave our classes to watch them. :hmm:

We had a lot of fights as well.  That was just a more extreme form of bullying.  Rare was the fight when the combatants were equally matched.  Although there were a lot of kids who did try to pick fights with me to prove how tough they were.  I was normally the one who broke the fights up when a bully was beating the crap out of a smaller/more timid kid.  And as for the notion that bullies will just move on if a kid stands up to them - in my experience the bully just comes back with more friends.

Oh most of the fights I saw weren't like that. Mostly they were evenly matched / a majority were whites vs. brazilians fights.

There was shortly after I left a fight between two girls who both were hooking up with the same guy. Girl on girl violence led to one girl having a glass bottle broken across her face. :(

Wow, was yours an inner city school?  :huh:

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 16, 2015, 11:35:56 AM

Quote from: Martinus on January 16, 2015, 11:33:03 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 16, 2015, 11:28:06 AM

Quote from: Warspite on January 16, 2015, 11:24:44 AM
As parents and adults, how do you identify and quantify bullying? How do you know the context to the roughing - for example, that a punch or a push during recess is a one off or part of a systematic targeting of a victim that includes verbal attacks and continues into lessons and after school? We stop seeing things as kids at some point, does that mean we might fail to notice problems that are still there?

I'd also say there's a difference between being near the bottom of the pecking order and being bullied. Easy to confuse the two.

Edit: I'm not sure the fighting-back method always works. I saw enough kids in one of my rougher schools get picked on substantially even when they hit back. Also, schools with strong discipline can end up making this a counter-productive strategy. I nearly got chucked out of one school for 'getting into fights' that were really me trying to stand up to a bully who saw me as an easy target.

You raise a very important point.  Bullying has moved to the internet.  The kinds of bullying that occur now are much more harmful than what we witnessed as kids.  Victims of this new kind of bullying are killing themselves.

:lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:

It is much more harmful because it no longer involves beating up but now involves words on the internet? I rest my case.

:lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:

Look up Amanda Todd.  And the all too many other teens who have killed themselves because of cyber bullying.  Idiot.

I know that - and I referred to this before when I said that if verbal harassment causes a kid to kill himself or herself, this is an indication of either serious mental health issues or a completely fucked up situation at home.

Quote from: Martinus on January 16, 2015, 11:36:45 AM

Quote from: garbon on January 16, 2015, 11:29:23 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 16, 2015, 11:25:31 AM

Quote from: garbon on January 16, 2015, 11:22:20 AM
As far as I can remember, bullying was much less of a problem at my school as opposed to fights. We had a lot of fights that would take place both in school and outside of it. And many of us would leave our classes to watch them. :hmm:

We had a lot of fights as well.  That was just a more extreme form of bullying.  Rare was the fight when the combatants were equally matched.  Although there were a lot of kids who did try to pick fights with me to prove how tough they were.  I was normally the one who broke the fights up when a bully was beating the crap out of a smaller/more timid kid.  And as for the notion that bullies will just move on if a kid stands up to them - in my experience the bully just comes back with more friends.

Oh most of the fights I saw weren't like that. Mostly they were evenly matched / a majority were whites vs. brazilians fights.

There was shortly after I left a fight between two girls who both were hooking up with the same guy. Girl on girl violence led to one girl having a glass bottle broken across her face. :(

Wow, was yours an inner city school?  :huh:

Nope, I was out in the 'burbs. In fact, a few years ago, that same town was named one of the best places to raise children in Massachusetts. ^_^

edit: It wasn't one of the best places, it was noted as the best place in MA!

Actually to demonstrate what a complete idiot you are Marti here is the link for everyone to see.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej7afkypUsc

Quote from: Martinus on January 16, 2015, 11:33:03 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 16, 2015, 11:28:06 AM

Quote from: Warspite on January 16, 2015, 11:24:44 AM
As parents and adults, how do you identify and quantify bullying? How do you know the context to the roughing - for example, that a punch or a push during recess is a one off or part of a systematic targeting of a victim that includes verbal attacks and continues into lessons and after school? We stop seeing things as kids at some point, does that mean we might fail to notice problems that are still there?

I'd also say there's a difference between being near the bottom of the pecking order and being bullied. Easy to confuse the two.

Edit: I'm not sure the fighting-back method always works. I saw enough kids in one of my rougher schools get picked on substantially even when they hit back. Also, schools with strong discipline can end up making this a counter-productive strategy. I nearly got chucked out of one school for 'getting into fights' that were really me trying to stand up to a bully who saw me as an easy target.

You raise a very important point.  Bullying has moved to the internet.  The kinds of bullying that occur now are much more harmful than what we witnessed as kids.  Victims of this new kind of bullying are killing themselves.

:lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:

It is much more harmful because it no longer involves beating up but now involves words on the internet? I rest my case.

:lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:

Bullying isn't simply about physical harm - kids hurt themselves much more playing sport or, well, just playing - it's about the victimisation. It's also now scientifically established that there is overlap in the brain between the centres that deal with physical pain and those that deal with social anguish.

So while we can contest the idea that cyber-bullying is 'much more' harmful, I don't think you can contest the idea that it can be harmful and you certainly cannot contest the idea that cyber-bullying is much harder to escape because it follows you out of school.

I've never been subject to cyber-bullying, but I have seen adult friends of mine harassed online, and the stress and anguish it can cause in grown adults - with strong support networks - is real.

Lots of posters seem to have gone to seriously ghetto schools. Fights? What ages are we talking about here?

Quote from: Warspite on January 16, 2015, 11:42:32 AM
So while we can contest the idea that cyber-bullying is 'much more' harmful, I don't think you can contest the idea that it can be harmful and you certainly cannot contest the idea that cyber-bullying is much harder to escape because it follows you out of school.

While for adults leading a professional life going "offline" may not be an option, I'm pretty sure a school kid can choose to deactivate a Facebook account or an e-mail address.

See, this is what I was talking about before. Sure, if you let it, being called names online can be pretty mean. But people like CC make it sound like it is something that is completely unmanageable and traumatic. I think it is a function of pussification of the society and (possibly) parents leaving their kids unsupported rather than this being this horrible new threat we must combat, on par with Ebola and HIV.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 16, 2015, 11:31:50 AM

Quote from: Martinus on January 16, 2015, 11:23:06 AM
Ok, maybe you guys went to schools populated by sociopaths.  :P

To me "bullying" means kids calling each other a "faggot" or making fun of each other's speech impediments and clothes, not engaging in BDSM rituals.

Naw bullying can also include inviting someone to off themselves.  I am not surprised you have a weak understanding of what bullying might be.

But that would only work on Raz. Don't think if I told Ed Anger or Malthus to off themselves, they would do it.

QED.

Edit: And it also show very well why some people are more bullied than others. Sure, Raz may be vulnerable but he is also fucking annoying and obnoxious.

Quote from: Martinus on January 16, 2015, 11:50:40 AM

Quote from: Warspite on January 16, 2015, 11:42:32 AM
So while we can contest the idea that cyber-bullying is 'much more' harmful, I don't think you can contest the idea that it can be harmful and you certainly cannot contest the idea that cyber-bullying is much harder to escape because it follows you out of school.

While for adults leading a professional life going "offline" may not be an option, I'm pretty sure a school kid can choose to deactivate a Facebook account or an e-mail address.

And a school kid can find out what the identity has changed to. But forcing a kid off comms completely sounds like a pretty good victory for the bully, and pretty miserable for the victim. It's analagous to not being able to leave the house for fear of getting a thumping.

QuoteSee, this is what I was talking about before. Sure, if you let it, being called names online can be pretty mean. But people like CC make it sound like it is something that is completely unmanageable and traumatic. I think it is a function of pussification of the society and (possibly) parents leaving their kids unsupported rather than this being this horrible new threat we must combat, on par with Ebola and HIV.

I'm not sure anyone has compared it in scale or significance to Ebola and HIV. CC made the point that bullying has changed - it has, for the simple reason that the Internet was not as ubiquitous in the past and, moreover, social networks as we now know them did not exist until recently.

Nor is he claiming all bullying is traumatic. He has - correctly, and with evidence - pointed out that it can be. This should not be surprising. Kids, after all, do not have the perspective and experience held by the adults who counsel 'sticks and stones...'.

Quote from: Martinus on January 16, 2015, 11:12:55 AM
That's also why I asked what bullying means in American schools. As I said, from my school days, "bullying" meant, usually kids making fun of other kids, and calling them names. And then I said that when you listen to today's American celebrities, it's as if everyone was severely bullied which left them traumatised. So it must be a cultural thing I guess.

It really does vary by school/city/region.  I was briefly bullied a couple times and it wasn't the end of the world.  First time was settled when I gave one of the two kids a black eye (scared the shit out of second one)-- not long afterward the three of us became best friends.  Second time my older brother dealt with the older kid bullying me.  The former bully and I got along pretty well after that.  Things got sorted out without getting any adults involved.

And my brothers terrorized me constantly, which is what older brothers do, but that just toughened me up.

Bullying can get way out of hand as we see in sensational news stories, but in my life experience I never really saw it.  Berkut and I just have different experiences.

Quote from: Martinus on January 16, 2015, 11:50:40 AM

Quote from: Warspite on January 16, 2015, 11:42:32 AM
So while we can contest the idea that cyber-bullying is 'much more' harmful, I don't think you can contest the idea that it can be harmful and you certainly cannot contest the idea that cyber-bullying is much harder to escape because it follows you out of school.

While for adults leading a professional life going "offline" may not be an option, I'm pretty sure a school kid can choose to deactivate a Facebook account or an e-mail address.

See, this is what I was talking about before. Sure, if you let it, being called names online can be pretty mean. But people like CC make it sound like it is something that is completely unmanageable and traumatic. I think it is a function of pussification of the society and (possibly) parents leaving their kids unsupported rather than this being this horrible new threat we must combat, on par with Ebola and HIV.

To my mind, what it boils down to is this: bullying is, in its most basic form, a pathological version of social pressure that every society has (indeed, ought to have). In every society, there is pressure to conform, to not exceed certain boundaries - indeed, the law is the ultimate form this takes.

What bullying does, is use this mechanism, not for enforcing boundaries that make sense functionally, but for the amusement of or to increase the social standing of the bully. The bully may well *appear* to be merely enforcing social conformity, but that is not his or her actual motive - what they are doing, is using social conformity to their advantage. Picking on a kid who has "queer" tastes or behaviours (say) will not necessarily cease if that kid outwardly conforms: it may well continue, because the real purpose is not to enforce conformity, but to build up the bully.

What makes this a problem isn't necessarily the bully him or herself, but the fact that the bully acts with tacit or express approval of the other members of their society (that is, other kids). He or she is playing to an audience. That is why kids cannot easily simply ignore the bullying - to do so would cement their status as an outsider in the society that matters to them.   

In some ways, if bullying was merely a matter of physical fighting, it is easier to deal with - see all the posters claiming that they basically sorted out bullies by simply fighting back. It is a lot more difficult to deal with someone trolling you - you can't just fight it out.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 16, 2015, 11:28:06 AM
You raise a very important point.  Bullying has moved to the internet.  The kinds of bullying that occur now are much more harmful than what we witnessed as kids.  Victims of this new kind of bullying are killing themselves.

I don't know, man...maybe for the way girl bullying develops, but I would think that, in dealing with my bully issues as a child I would have had a much more level playing field in retaliating on the internet than I did when I would come home with a black eye.


I told you guys how I had a systemic bully issue from 2nd grade to 7th grade, with my parents getting the school administration involved to no avail, and how I handled it.  I don't know how my solution would fly today, though, but sometimes a kid's got to deal with it on his own and the best thing a parent can do is have his back.

Quote from: Warspite on January 16, 2015, 12:01:19 PM
But forcing a kid off comms completely sounds like a pretty good victory for the bully, and pretty miserable for the victim. It's analagous to not being able to leave the house for fear of getting a thumping.

:rolleyes:  Yeah, heaven forbid.

Quote from: Malthus on January 16, 2015, 12:06:15 PM
In some ways, if bullying was merely a matter of physical fighting, it is easier to deal with - see all the posters claiming that they basically sorted out bullies by simply fighting back.

I disagree:  when you're 11 years old, a bully that has 15 lbs and 4" on you has a distinct advantage.  It is not easier to deal with.

Quote from: derspiess on January 16, 2015, 12:14:46 PM

Quote from: Warspite on January 16, 2015, 12:01:19 PM
But forcing a kid off comms completely sounds like a pretty good victory for the bully, and pretty miserable for the victim. It's analagous to not being able to leave the house for fear of getting a thumping.

:rolleyes:  Yeah, heaven forbid.

:huh:

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 16, 2015, 12:15:01 PM

Quote from: Malthus on January 16, 2015, 12:06:15 PM
In some ways, if bullying was merely a matter of physical fighting, it is easier to deal with - see all the posters claiming that they basically sorted out bullies by simply fighting back.

I disagree:  when you're 11 years old, a bully that has 15 lbs and 4" on you has a distinct advantage.  It is not easier to deal with.

I agree Seedy.  Both forms are serious.  Its why I always felt compelled to pull the bully off the other kid.  The point is that both forms are serious but the new form of cyberbullying is causing kids to commit suicide.  It may be that kids who were beat up also committed suicide but we didn't know about it. 

Quote from: Martinus on January 16, 2015, 11:51:55 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 16, 2015, 11:31:50 AM

Quote from: Martinus on January 16, 2015, 11:23:06 AM
Ok, maybe you guys went to schools populated by sociopaths.  :P

To me "bullying" means kids calling each other a "faggot" or making fun of each other's speech impediments and clothes, not engaging in BDSM rituals.

Naw bullying can also include inviting someone to off themselves.  I am not surprised you have a weak understanding of what bullying might be.

But that would only work on Raz. Don't think if I told Ed Anger or Malthus to off themselves, they would do it.

QED.

Edit: And it also show very well why some people are more bullied than others. Sure, Raz may be vulnerable but he is also fucking annoying and obnoxious.

Hasn't worked yet.

Quote from: garbon on January 16, 2015, 12:18:51 PM

Quote from: derspiess on January 16, 2015, 12:14:46 PM

Quote from: Warspite on January 16, 2015, 12:01:19 PM
But forcing a kid off comms completely sounds like a pretty good victory for the bully, and pretty miserable for the victim. It's analagous to not being able to leave the house for fear of getting a thumping.

:rolleyes:  Yeah, heaven forbid.

:huh:

One hopes Spicey misread the post when he responded to it.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 16, 2015, 12:24:09 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 16, 2015, 12:15:01 PM

Quote from: Malthus on January 16, 2015, 12:06:15 PM
In some ways, if bullying was merely a matter of physical fighting, it is easier to deal with - see all the posters claiming that they basically sorted out bullies by simply fighting back.

I disagree:  when you're 11 years old, a bully that has 15 lbs and 4" on you has a distinct advantage.  It is not easier to deal with.

I agree Seedy.  Both forms are serious.  Its why I always felt compelled to pull the bully off the other kid.  The point is that both forms are serious but the new form of cyberbullying is causing kids to commit suicide.  It may be that kids who were beat up also committed suicide but we didn't know about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MS91knuzoOA

Quote from: Martinus on January 16, 2015, 11:51:55 AM

But that would only work on Raz. Don't think if I told Ed Anger or Malthus to off themselves, they would do it.

QED.

Edit: And it also show very well why some people are more bullied than others. Sure, Raz may be vulnerable but he is also fucking annoying and obnoxious.

Yep, I was pretty sure letting you back was a mistake.

Quote from: Warspite on January 16, 2015, 12:25:57 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 16, 2015, 12:24:09 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 16, 2015, 12:15:01 PM

Quote from: Malthus on January 16, 2015, 12:06:15 PM
In some ways, if bullying was merely a matter of physical fighting, it is easier to deal with - see all the posters claiming that they basically sorted out bullies by simply fighting back.

I disagree:  when you're 11 years old, a bully that has 15 lbs and 4" on you has a distinct advantage.  It is not easier to deal with.

I agree Seedy.  Both forms are serious.  Its why I always felt compelled to pull the bully off the other kid.  The point is that both forms are serious but the new form of cyberbullying is causing kids to commit suicide.  It may be that kids who were beat up also committed suicide but we didn't know about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MS91knuzoOA

Good point.

Quote from: Malthus on January 16, 2015, 12:06:15 PM
In some ways, if bullying was merely a matter of physical fighting, it is easier to deal with - see all the posters claiming that they basically sorted out bullies by simply fighting back. It is a lot more difficult to deal with someone trolling you - you can't just fight it out.

Actually my first situation (first grade) was me being taunted and called names at the bus stop.  They got in my face but never pushed me or anything.  Took place over a few weeks.  Last time one of them got in my face he got a black eye and it ended there.  When we got to school the principal called me into his office to yell at me.  He told me fighting is never the way to solve a problem, that I should have tattled, etc. and I nodded but knew it was all bullshit.  Got away with no formal punishment, though I guess simply getting in trouble and the fear of getting paddled was punishment enough.

But maybe those were different times.  If someone bullied my kids over the internet these days, I guess I'd have to backtrace their location and get the cyber-police involved.  Consequences would never be the same.

Quote from: Martinus on January 16, 2015, 11:12:55 AM

Quote from: derspiess on January 16, 2015, 10:44:34 AM

Quote from: Berkut on January 16, 2015, 10:11:02 AM
Bullying is fucking bullshit, and asking children to deal with it simply doesn't work. If child A knows how to handle the bully, whether by temperment or good instruction, then the bully simply moves to another child who cannot handle it well. And there will eventually be a victim.

Not always the case.  I think it's at least as likely that standing up to the bully (especially in front of other kids) will put him in his place.  Can't imagine getting the cops involved unless it gets really, really serious.

We're never going to get rid of bullying.  Best we can do IMO is teach our kids how to effectively deal with it.

I wouldn't bother. I just realised we had this discussion before and it always ends with Berkut building his strawman where bullying is something akin to maiming and raping (as opposed to making fun of) and then proceeds as usual. :berkut:

That's also why I asked what bullying means in American schools. As I said, from my school days, "bullying" meant, usually kids making fun of other kids, and calling them names. And then I said that when you listen to today's American celebrities, it's as if everyone was severely bullied which left them traumatised. So it must be a cultural thing I guess.

Go fuck yourself Marty. I never said bullyiing was akin to maiming or raping, I said it was assault, which of course it is.

But as usual you just lie, lie, lie about what people say. So, again, go fuck yourself.

Pathetic that a gay man would play "blame the victim" when it comes to people treating others like shit because they don't conform, but it is par for the course for you on Languish. You are all for treating others like pieces of shit as long as it isn't YOUR demographic being targeted. Bigotry is ugly.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 16, 2015, 12:25:11 PM
One hopes Spicey misread the post when he responded to it.

Maybe I did.  Is it really the end of the world for a kid to delete their Facebook/Twitter/Instagram profiles for a cooling off period?  Are kids completely unable to function without that?

Quote from: derspiess on January 16, 2015, 12:33:34 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 16, 2015, 12:25:11 PM
One hopes Spicey misread the post when he responded to it.

Maybe I did.  Is it really the end of the world for a kid to delete their Facebook/Twitter/Instagram profiles for a cooling off period?  Are kids completely unable to function without that?

It wouldn't be the end of the world, but the kid is then cut off from fairly common means of communications with his or her friends. It's the relative isolation that hurts, as Malthus describes very well.

Quote from: derspiess on January 16, 2015, 12:33:34 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 16, 2015, 12:25:11 PM
One hopes Spicey misread the post when he responded to it.

Maybe I did.  Is it really the end of the world for a kid to delete their Facebook/Twitter/Instagram profiles for a cooling off period?  Are kids completely unable to function without that?

Pretty much yes.  My kids communicate with their friends, team mates, coaches and classmates using facebook and other social media.  That is what makes cyberbullying so serious.  In order for a child to function in society they need to access the net otherwise they are completely cut off and, in the case of Amanda Todd and too many others, that isolation is part of the reason they commit suicide.

Still don't get it. Plenty of other ways to communicate with their friends.  At what age to kids start doing the social media thing anyway?  I plan to keep my kids off of it for as long as absolutely possible.

Quote from: derspiess on January 16, 2015, 12:41:05 PM
Still don't get it. Plenty of other ways to communicate with their friends.  At what age to kids start doing the social media thing anyway?  I plan to keep my kids off of it for as long as absolutely possible.

Like what?

Example, a team organizes its practices through facebook.  Discussions about the practice and compliments about how well people did fly back and forth along with jokes and the usual kind of banter one expects from team mates.  Sure it might be possible for a kid who is disconnected to find out when the practice time is but they then miss out on all the other social interactions which are occurring.

Multiply that across all the other forms of communication that occur everyday on social media.

Kids don't use phones to actually talk to one another anymore.  They text and use social media.

QuoteI plan to keep my kids off of it for as long as absolutely possible.

Imo, much better to teach them how to use it properly.  It is going to be a central part of their lives whether you like it or not.  Better for you to teach them what they need to know.

Now that I think about it, I doubt my particular bully would've had the wattage for cyberbullying.  Just a lot easier to throw my lunch out into the street and punch me in the mouth.

Hey CC, were you bullied as a kid?

Quote from: Martinus on January 16, 2015, 01:02:17 PM
Hey CC, were you bullied as a kid?

Hey Marti, are you able to read?

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 16, 2015, 01:09:25 PM

Quote from: Martinus on January 16, 2015, 01:02:17 PM
Hey CC, were you bullied as a kid?

Hey Marti, are you able to read?

You didn't say. Just that you were in many fights.

Quote from: Warspite on January 16, 2015, 12:35:59 PM

Quote from: derspiess on January 16, 2015, 12:33:34 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 16, 2015, 12:25:11 PM
One hopes Spicey misread the post when he responded to it.

Maybe I did.  Is it really the end of the world for a kid to delete their Facebook/Twitter/Instagram profiles for a cooling off period?  Are kids completely unable to function without that?

It wouldn't be the end of the world, but the kid is then cut off from fairly common means of communications with his or her friends. It's the relative isolation that hurts, as Malthus describes very well.

How serious being cut off is isn't even the point.

The point is that whether or not to use Facebook or not should not be under the control of some other asshole who has decided to torment someone for their amusement.

Saying "Gee, well, not being on FB isn't such a bad thing..." misses the point entirely. It's like saying someone who isn't allowed to go on the swings because some kid decided he would beat him up if they did is fine, because the swing is lame anyway.

Quote from: Martinus on January 16, 2015, 01:16:33 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 16, 2015, 01:09:25 PM

Quote from: Martinus on January 16, 2015, 01:02:17 PM
Hey CC, were you bullied as a kid?

Hey Marti, are you able to read?

You didn't say. Just that you were in many fights.

Ok, so Berkut may have been wrong about you being dishonest about what others say.  It may be that your level of reading comprehension is so poor that you are not intentionally being dishonest.

So, sticks and stones may break my bones, but apparently words are sufficient for people born after 1990.   :hmm: :(

Then grow a pair and stop worrying about cyber bullying?

Seriously, this is heading towards making the world this cushy place where nothing offensive ever gets said by anyone. And then people wonder why we got to a point where a university bans "Vagina Monologues" because it "excludes women without a vagina." Don't you see the connection? We are creating a world of fucking pussies.

Parents should stop teaching their children how not to offend, but how not to take offense or care about someone saying something mean or disagreeable.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 16, 2015, 01:22:43 PM
So, sticks and stones may break my bones, but apparently words are sufficient for people born after 1990.   :hmm: :(

Did you look at the Amanda Todd link I posted?

I've heard about her before. It's very sad but the answer is not to lock kids up in their homes.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 16, 2015, 01:26:08 PM
I've heard about her before. It's very sad but the answer is not to lock kids up in their homes.

Who suggested that is the answer?

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 16, 2015, 01:26:08 PM
I've heard about her before. It's very sad but the answer is not to lock kids up in their homes.

Yeah. We can't build a society around outliers. That's the same attitude that led to hand luggage restrictions and the need to remove your shoes while going through security checks.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 16, 2015, 01:28:23 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 16, 2015, 01:26:08 PM
I've heard about her before. It's very sad but the answer is not to lock kids up in their homes.

Who suggested that is the answer?

This comes back to the same point as was made earlier in this thread (before it went to bullying). People no longer understand the concept of understandable losses. You can't build your rules to provide everybody with 100% protection.

How many kids like that are there? One in 10,000? One in a million?

Wow.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 16, 2015, 01:28:23 PM
Who suggested that is the answer?

The articles at the beginning of the thread suggest it's the answer society's chosen.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 16, 2015, 01:33:46 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 16, 2015, 01:28:23 PM
Who suggested that is the answer?

The articles at the beginning of the thread suggest it's the answer society's chosen.

And we have all been discussing how that should not be the case.  Berkut took the position that we need to deal with bullying rather than put up with it.  Marti says that is ok to sacrifice kids to toughen them up.

Dramafags all of you. :sleep: Winter will be long.

Here's a more pragmatic consideration for those of you that think bullying isn't a problem. By ignoring bullies, what are you teaching them about how it is acceptable to conduct oneself as an adult?

Quote from: Martinus on January 16, 2015, 01:23:53 PM
Then grow a pair and stop worrying about cyber bullying?

Seriously, this is heading towards making the world this cushy place where nothing offensive ever gets said by anyone.

Not really.

QuoteParents should stop teaching their children how not to offend, but how not to take offense or care about someone saying something mean or disagreeable.

Pray tell how do you teach someone 'not to take offense'? By turning them into an autist?

By the way, bullying isn't about 'mean or disagreeable' things; it's much more nasty. It's the kind of stuff gays had to put up with before society realised there was a more enlightened way of doing things. Or perhaps people like Turing were just pussies.

Quote from: Martinus on January 16, 2015, 01:23:53 PM
Then grow a pair and stop worrying about cyber bullying?

Seriously, this is heading towards making the world this cushy place where nothing offensive ever gets said by anyone. And then people wonder why we got to a point where a university bans "Vagina Monologues" because it "excludes women without a vagina." Don't you see the connection? We are creating a world of fucking pussies.

Parents should stop teaching their children how not to offend, but how not to take offense or care about someone saying something mean or disagreeable.

Given that we know that in most cases the bully is a victim as well (I believe studies and psychologists have shown that most bullies were bullied themselves, often at home, or have significant social anxiety around their own insecurity and fears of not being accepted), I think it is pretty easy to understand what drives Marty's own behavior.

Parents should teach their children to have empathy and respect for others, and not physically or mentally abuse them in an effort to obtain the social acceptance they fear they cannot achieve on their own.

It is a crazy thought, I know.

Quote from: Warspite on January 16, 2015, 02:00:36 PM
Here's a more pragmatic consideration for those of you that think bullying isn't a problem. By ignoring bullies, what are you teaching them about how it is acceptable to conduct oneself as an adult?

But the converse is also true. By combating bullies we are teaching their would-be victims about how it is acceptable to conduct oneself as an adult with no fear of reprisal or ostracism. Hence Perez Hilton and Chris Crocker, who clearly were not bullied enough as kids. :P

Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 15, 2015, 08:12:44 PM
I didn't realize how bad America was on this until I lived in Korea and traveled around some.

I'm not sure Europe is so different, but it hit me how crazy the difference was when I was in a town in Peru and once school let out the place was packed with grade school age children* who were unsupervised.

*Do to the height of the typical country Peruvian, it is possible they were all adults.

Quote from: Martinus on January 16, 2015, 02:03:11 PM

Quote from: Warspite on January 16, 2015, 02:00:36 PM
Here's a more pragmatic consideration for those of you that think bullying isn't a problem. By ignoring bullies, what are you teaching them about how it is acceptable to conduct oneself as an adult?

But the converse is also true. By combating bullies we are teaching their would-be victims about how it is acceptable to conduct oneself as an adult with no fear of reprisal or ostracism. Hence Perez Hilton and Chris Crocker, who clearly were not bullied enough as kids. :P

Isn't it "Christina"?

Quote from: Warspite on January 16, 2015, 02:01:37 PM

Quote from: Martinus on January 16, 2015, 01:23:53 PM
Then grow a pair and stop worrying about cyber bullying?

Seriously, this is heading towards making the world this cushy place where nothing offensive ever gets said by anyone.

Not really.

QuoteParents should stop teaching their children how not to offend, but how not to take offense or care about someone saying something mean or disagreeable.

Pray tell how do you teach someone 'not to take offense'? By turning them into an autist?

By the way, bullying isn't about 'mean or disagreeable' things; it's much more nasty. It's the kind of stuff gays had to put up with before society realised there was a more enlightened way of doing things. Or perhaps people like Turing were just pussies.

Isn't there a golden medium though? It seems to me we are now pushing in the opposite extreme.

... oh this is where the "cyberbullies" thing in the other thread came from.

Quote from: Martinus on January 16, 2015, 02:03:11 PM

Quote from: Warspite on January 16, 2015, 02:00:36 PM
Here's a more pragmatic consideration for those of you that think bullying isn't a problem. By ignoring bullies, what are you teaching them about how it is acceptable to conduct oneself as an adult?

But the converse is also true. By combating bullies we are teaching their would-be victims about how it is acceptable to conduct oneself as an adult with no fear of reprisal or ostracism. Hence Perez Hilton and Chris Crocker, who clearly were not bullied enough as kids. :P

Wow, Mary actually believe that if people just didn't bully each other, we would be worse off.

He is actually arguing that not only is bullying not such a bad thing, NOT bullying is the real problem!

You are literally arguing that some kid beating the shit out of some other kid because they are asian, or has a speech impediment, or simply doesn't look like everyone else, or, yes, because they are gay, is something that should be encouraged in order to convince the kid being abused to stop being different.

That we need to "teach would be victims" that it is not acceptable to "conduct oneself" as they actually are.

You are actually taking the Onion article seriously.

Quote from: Berkut on January 16, 2015, 02:09:53 PM
Wow, Mary actually believe that if people just didn't bully each other, we would be worse off.

Talk about a cheap shot! <_<

:P

Quote from: Berkut on January 16, 2015, 02:09:53 PM

Quote from: Martinus on January 16, 2015, 02:03:11 PM

Quote from: Warspite on January 16, 2015, 02:00:36 PM
Here's a more pragmatic consideration for those of you that think bullying isn't a problem. By ignoring bullies, what are you teaching them about how it is acceptable to conduct oneself as an adult?

But the converse is also true. By combating bullies we are teaching their would-be victims about how it is acceptable to conduct oneself as an adult with no fear of reprisal or ostracism. Hence Perez Hilton and Chris Crocker, who clearly were not bullied enough as kids. :P

Wow, Mary actually believe that if people just didn't bully each other, we would be worse off.

He is actually arguing that not only is bullying not such a bad thing, NOT bullying is the real problem!

You are literally arguing that some kid beating the shit out of some other kid because they are asian, or has a speech impediment, or simply doesn't look like everyone else, or, yes, because they are gay, is something that should be encouraged in order to convince the kid being abused to stop being different.

That we need to "teach would be victims" that it is not acceptable to "conduct oneself" as they actually are.

You are actually taking the Onion article seriously.

I never said anything about beating. You are sailing those boundaries between verbal harassment, beating up and maimimg/rape with a great ease, Berkut. ;)

Quote from: garbon on January 16, 2015, 02:10:41 PM

Quote from: Berkut on January 16, 2015, 02:09:53 PM
Wow, Mary actually believe that if people just didn't bully each other, we would be worse off.

Talk about a cheap shot! <_<

:P

I guess Berkut is happy to cyberbully me for being gay if it fits his fascist agenda. :(

I do find it ironic the suggestion that to counter the pussification of society we need to encourage more people to be cnuts.

The video proof of what happens if there isn't enough bullying:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc

Quote from: Martinus on January 16, 2015, 02:15:15 PM

Quote from: Berkut on January 16, 2015, 02:09:53 PM

Quote from: Martinus on January 16, 2015, 02:03:11 PM

Quote from: Warspite on January 16, 2015, 02:00:36 PM
Here's a more pragmatic consideration for those of you that think bullying isn't a problem. By ignoring bullies, what are you teaching them about how it is acceptable to conduct oneself as an adult?

But the converse is also true. By combating bullies we are teaching their would-be victims about how it is acceptable to conduct oneself as an adult with no fear of reprisal or ostracism. Hence Perez Hilton and Chris Crocker, who clearly were not bullied enough as kids. :P

Wow, Mary actually believe that if people just didn't bully each other, we would be worse off.

He is actually arguing that not only is bullying not such a bad thing, NOT bullying is the real problem!

You are literally arguing that some kid beating the shit out of some other kid because they are asian, or has a speech impediment, or simply doesn't look like everyone else, or, yes, because they are gay, is something that should be encouraged in order to convince the kid being abused to stop being different.

That we need to "teach would be victims" that it is not acceptable to "conduct oneself" as they actually are.

You are actually taking the Onion article seriously.

I never said anything about beating. You are sailing those boundaries between verbal harassment, beating up and maimimg/rape with a great ease, Berkut. ;)

Bullying certianly includes physical violence and intimidation. You cannot condone bullying, but exclude the parts that are actually what people who are concerned about bullying object to, which is the physical attacks and over the top intimidation and abuse.

We are talking about bullying, not kids harassing each other.

Quote from: Warspite on January 16, 2015, 02:16:33 PM
I do find it ironic the suggestion that to counter the pussification of society we need to encourage more people to be cnuts.

'I imagine for Marty it is more a matter of "Wait, the way I act and acted when I was a kid makes me a douchebag???? NOOOOO! I was not the cunt, it was everyone else!!!!"

Quote from: Berkut on January 16, 2015, 02:18:06 PM
We are talking about bullying, not kids harassing each other.

Please scan through all my posts in this thread and tell me where have I ever condoned anything other than verbal harassment. In fact I made that point expressly several times and, where talking about more specific forms, I was talking about cyber bullying (which is also a form of verbal harassment). You really are fast to jump to conclusions.

Quote from: Berkut on January 16, 2015, 02:19:20 PM

Quote from: Warspite on January 16, 2015, 02:16:33 PM
I do find it ironic the suggestion that to counter the pussification of society we need to encourage more people to be cnuts.

'I imagine for Marty it is more a matter of "Wait, the way I act and acted when I was a kid makes me a douchebag???? NOOOOO! I was not the cunt, it was everyone else!!!!"

I was not a bully as a kid. As I said, I was an awkward, nerdy, gay kid who sucked at sports. I also had a relatively large head and a mild speech impediment. Because of all of this I was given nicknames and the like but I do not view it as something traumatic - that's my entire position in this thread. I was able to get out of it because I had a sense of humour and because I became friends with the most punk rock kid in school.

I think you are really project a lot of things unto me here. I'm sorry your childhood was different but it is not my fault.

Quote from: Martinus on January 16, 2015, 02:20:48 PM

Quote from: Berkut on January 16, 2015, 02:18:06 PM
We are talking about bullying, not kids harassing each other.

Please scan through all my posts in this thread and tell me where have I ever condoned anything other than verbal harassment. In fact I made that point expressly several times and, where talking about more specific forms, I was talking about cyber bullying (which is also a form of verbal harassment). You really are fast to jump to conclusions.

If it is verbal harassment that rises to the level of bullying, then you are a cunt for tolerating or encouraging it, and you were a cunt for engaging in it when you were the bully. Stuff like telling someone to kill themselves, for example.

If you are not talking about that level of harassment, then we are not talking about bullying at all, by definition, so you are just being a dick for trying to confuse the topic. *We* are talking about bullying, not a couple buddies giving each other shit.

Quote from: Malthus on January 16, 2015, 12:06:15 PM
To my mind, what it boils down to is this: bullying is, in its most basic form, a pathological version of social pressure that every society has (indeed, ought to have). In every society, there is pressure to conform, to not exceed certain boundaries - indeed, the law is the ultimate form this takes.

What bullying does, is use this mechanism, not for enforcing boundaries that make sense functionally, but for the amusement of or to increase the social standing of the bully. The bully may well *appear* to be merely enforcing social conformity, but that is not his or her actual motive - what they are doing, is using social conformity to their advantage. Picking on a kid who has "queer" tastes or behaviours (say) will not necessarily cease if that kid outwardly conforms: it may well continue, because the real purpose is not to enforce conformity, but to build up the bully.

What makes this a problem isn't necessarily the bully him or herself, but the fact that the bully acts with tacit or express approval of the other members of their society (that is, other kids). He or she is playing to an audience. That is why kids cannot easily simply ignore the bullying - to do so would cement their status as an outsider in the society that matters to them.   

In some ways, if bullying was merely a matter of physical fighting, it is easier to deal with - see all the posters claiming that they basically sorted out bullies by simply fighting back. It is a lot more difficult to deal with someone trolling you - you can't just fight it out.

I think this is very apt.

Quote from: Berkut on January 16, 2015, 02:24:13 PM

Quote from: Martinus on January 16, 2015, 02:20:48 PM

Quote from: Berkut on January 16, 2015, 02:18:06 PM
We are talking about bullying, not kids harassing each other.

Please scan through all my posts in this thread and tell me where have I ever condoned anything other than verbal harassment. In fact I made that point expressly several times and, where talking about more specific forms, I was talking about cyber bullying (which is also a form of verbal harassment). You really are fast to jump to conclusions.

If it is verbal harassment that rises to the level of bullying, then you are a cunt for tolerating or encouraging it, and you were a cunt for engaging in it when you were the bully. Stuff like telling someone to kill themselves, for example.

If you are not talking about that level of harassment, then we are not talking about bullying at all, by definition, so you are just being a dick for trying to confuse the topic. *We* are talking about bullying, not a couple buddies giving each other shit.

Isn't the "rises to the level of bullying" a bit of an issue that is open to debate? Wouldn't that depend on the sensitivity of the addressee?

Quote from: Martinus on January 16, 2015, 02:23:17 PM
I was not a bully as a kid. As I said, I was an awkward, nerdy, gay kid who sucked at sports. I also had a relatively large head and a mild speech impediment. Because of all of this I was given nicknames and the like but I do not view it as something traumatic - that's my entire position in this thread. I was able to get out of it because I had a sense of humour and because I became friends with the most punk rock kid in school.

And now you're making the world pay as a mergers and acquisitions attorney.

Quote from: Martinus on January 16, 2015, 02:23:17 PM

Quote from: Berkut on January 16, 2015, 02:19:20 PM

Quote from: Warspite on January 16, 2015, 02:16:33 PM
I do find it ironic the suggestion that to counter the pussification of society we need to encourage more people to be cnuts.

'I imagine for Marty it is more a matter of "Wait, the way I act and acted when I was a kid makes me a douchebag???? NOOOOO! I was not the cunt, it was everyone else!!!!"

I was not a bully as a kid. As I said, I was an awkward, nerdy, gay kid who sucked at sports. I also had a relatively large head and a mild speech impediment. Because of all of this I was given nicknames and the like but I do not view it as something traumatic - that's my entire position in this thread. I was able to get out of it because I had a sense of humour and because I became friends with the most punk rock kid in school.

So as long as you were able to get out of being beaten up and ostracized, then it was ok with you if others were beaten up and ostracized. Yes, this makes you such a better person than an actual bully. In fact, you are arguing that bullies are a good thing, so whether or not YOU bullied anyone or not (and you certainly have on Languish, so we know you mean it when you say it is a positive thing) is immaterial, you think bullies are a good thing, and presumably the only thing stopping you from "harassing" other kids for not talking right, or being weird, or simply not fitting into your mold of what was acceptable was that you didn't have the balls to actually do it yourself, so just cheered on others for taking up that noble social task?

Quote
I think you are really project a lot of things unto me here. I'm sorry your childhood was different but it is not my fault.

I think I am judging you on the content of your posts.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 16, 2015, 02:27:26 PM

Quote from: Martinus on January 16, 2015, 02:23:17 PM
I was not a bully as a kid. As I said, I was an awkward, nerdy, gay kid who sucked at sports. I also had a relatively large head and a mild speech impediment. Because of all of this I was given nicknames and the like but I do not view it as something traumatic - that's my entire position in this thread. I was able to get out of it because I had a sense of humour and because I became friends with the most punk rock kid in school.

And now you're making the world pay as a mergers and acquisitions attorney.

Nah. It could explain my BDSM tendencies, though.  :hmm:

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 16, 2015, 12:53:50 PM
Like what?

I guess, phone or face to face communication.  Like what we had as kids.

QuoteExample, a team organizes its practices through facebook.  Discussions about the practice and compliments about how well people did fly back and forth along with jokes and the usual kind of banter one expects from team mates.  Sure it might be possible for a kid who is disconnected to find out when the practice time is but they then miss out on all the other social interactions which are occurring.

Wouldn't parents be privy to that?  Or are you saying kids are told about practice times & whatnot and parents are not?

QuoteMultiply that across all the other forms of communication that occur everyday on social media.

Okay.  They can live without it.

QuoteKids don't use phones to actually talk to one another anymore.  They text and use social media.

Yep, I've heard that.  But if being plugged into social media is doing more harm than good, wouldn't it make sense as a parent to disconnect the kid from it, at least for a period of time?  I'm not saying do nothing to stop the bullying, btw.  If it's really bad, yeah go after the bully. 

Quote
Imo, much better to teach them how to use it properly.  It is going to be a central part of their lives whether you like it or not.  Better for you to teach them what they need to know.

Oh, I'm sure I'll break down at some point.  And I'll make sure they have enough common sense when they do. I don't *think* either of my kids have the type of drama queen type personality that will draw them towards much drama as far as they relate to others-- fingers crossed on that one.

Genuinely curious though at what age most kids are starting on the social media thing.  And what's the latest age they can go without it before they're considered weirdos?

Quote from: Jacob on January 16, 2015, 02:24:27 PM

Quote from: Malthus on January 16, 2015, 12:06:15 PM
To my mind, what it boils down to is this: bullying is, in its most basic form, a pathological version of social pressure that every society has (indeed, ought to have). In every society, there is pressure to conform, to not exceed certain boundaries - indeed, the law is the ultimate form this takes.

What bullying does, is use this mechanism, not for enforcing boundaries that make sense functionally, but for the amusement of or to increase the social standing of the bully. The bully may well *appear* to be merely enforcing social conformity, but that is not his or her actual motive - what they are doing, is using social conformity to their advantage. Picking on a kid who has "queer" tastes or behaviours (say) will not necessarily cease if that kid outwardly conforms: it may well continue, because the real purpose is not to enforce conformity, but to build up the bully.

What makes this a problem isn't necessarily the bully him or herself, but the fact that the bully acts with tacit or express approval of the other members of their society (that is, other kids). He or she is playing to an audience. That is why kids cannot easily simply ignore the bullying - to do so would cement their status as an outsider in the society that matters to them.   

In some ways, if bullying was merely a matter of physical fighting, it is easier to deal with - see all the posters claiming that they basically sorted out bullies by simply fighting back. It is a lot more difficult to deal with someone trolling you - you can't just fight it out.

I think this is very apt.

Indeed. As usual, Malthus says what I am trying to say much better than I can.

I did want to add that an important part of childhood bullying is that children don't really get empathy - it has been shown that it is a learned emotion, and many kids just don't really have it - apparently some of us never actually develop it even later in life.

When I was a kid, for whatever reason, I think I had a very well developed sense of empathy, and I can recall actually getting physically ill in 4th grade watching some kids tease another kid at lunchtime - I just did not understand how they could be so cruel to the poor kid when it was obviously really hurting him.

And in this case, they didn't even lay a finger on him. But he had shitty clothes because his family was poor, and his jeans were atrociously generic and didn't fit right, so he was an easy mark. He went home crying, and I am sure Marty would be right there with the pack tormenting him, and now would look back on his actions and think "We did a good job making sure that kid understood that showing up to school in shitty jeans was NOT ACCEPTABLE SOCIAL BEHAVIOR!!!!"

Quote from: derspiess on January 16, 2015, 02:29:11 PM
Genuinely curious though at what age most kids are starting on the social media thing.  And what's the latest age they can go without it before they're considered weirdos?

Some of my nieces' classmates were ramping up as early as 9, although she's had a graduated entry monitored closely by my sister.  I think by 12, if you're not totally plugged in with social media, you're treated worse than I am on Languish about voicemail.   :D

Quote from: Berkut on January 16, 2015, 02:33:48 PM
I am sure Marty would be right there with the pack tormenting him, and now would look back on his actions and think "We did a good job making sure that kid understood that showing up to school in shitty jeans was NOT ACCEPTABLE SOCIAL BEHAVIOR!!!!"

:worthy: Anna Wintour

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 16, 2015, 02:34:24 PM

Quote from: derspiess on January 16, 2015, 02:29:11 PM
Genuinely curious though at what age most kids are starting on the social media thing.  And what's the latest age they can go without it before they're considered weirdos?

Some of my nieces' classmates were ramping up as early as 9, although she's had a graduated entry monitored closely by my sister.  I think by 12, if you're not totally plugged in with social media, you're treated worse than I am on Languish about voicemail.   :D

One of the worst things you can do is subject someone to a voicemail. -_-

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 16, 2015, 02:34:24 PM
Some of my nieces' classmates were ramping up as early as 9, although she's had a graduated entry monitored closely by my sister.  I think by 12, if you're not totally plugged in with social media, you're treated worse than I am on Languish about voicemail.   :D

You mean they still bother to verbally taunt people? I mean, nasty tweets won't have much impact if she's not online to read them.  :hmm:

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 16, 2015, 02:38:55 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 16, 2015, 02:34:24 PM
Some of my nieces' classmates were ramping up as early as 9, although she's had a graduated entry monitored closely by my sister.  I think by 12, if you're not totally plugged in with social media, you're treated worse than I am on Languish about voicemail.   :D

You mean they still bother to verbally taunt people? I mean, nasty tweets won't have much impact if she's not online to read them.  :hmm:

No they still have an impact, I'm pretty sure.

If half your classmates have been sending nasty tweets about you, they'll be referencing them and snickering about them to your face when you're in school whether you read them or not. You won't even know what they're talking about, so anything you do to defend yourself will be hillarious because you'll be missing the point and the context. You'll be the hillariously ignorant outsider, perfect fodder for another round of mocking tweets for the next day.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 16, 2015, 02:38:55 PM
You mean they still bother to verbally taunt people? I mean, nasty tweets won't have much impact if she's not online to read them.  :hmm:

She's in a private school which, in my observations over the years, has a substantially different social environment from the Hobbesian dystopia of public education that many of us were subjected to at Shawshank High.

Definition for Marty of what he is so vigorously defending as a necessary social force:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying

Quote from: WikiBullying is the use of force, threat, or coercion to abuse, intimidate, or aggressively dominate others. The behavior is often repeated and habitual. One essential prerequisite is the perception, by the bully or by others, of an imbalance of social or physical power. Behaviors used to assert such domination can include verbal harassment or threat, physical assault or coercion, and such acts may be directed repeatedly towards particular targets. Rationalizations for such behavior sometimes include differences of social class, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, appearance, behavior, body language, personality, reputation, lineage, strength, size or ability

Spend a lot of time around high schools, Jake?  :huh:  :P

Quote from: derspiess on January 16, 2015, 02:45:17 PM
Spend a lot of time around high schools, Jake?  :huh:  :P

Nope, but I know how social media and bullying works.

So I see.

Quote from: Jacob on January 16, 2015, 02:43:22 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 16, 2015, 02:38:55 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 16, 2015, 02:34:24 PM
Some of my nieces' classmates were ramping up as early as 9, although she's had a graduated entry monitored closely by my sister.  I think by 12, if you're not totally plugged in with social media, you're treated worse than I am on Languish about voicemail.   :D

You mean they still bother to verbally taunt people? I mean, nasty tweets won't have much impact if she's not online to read them.  :hmm:

No they still have an impact, I'm pretty sure.

If half your classmates have been sending nasty tweets about you, they'll be referencing them and snickering about them to your face when you're in school whether you read them or not. You won't even know what they're talking about, so anything you do to defend yourself will be hillarious because you'll be missing the point and the context. You'll be the hillariously ignorant outsider, perfect fodder for another round of mocking tweets for the next day.

Dear God! We need to ban the Internets!

Quote from: Martinus on January 16, 2015, 02:46:51 PM

Quote from: Jacob on January 16, 2015, 02:43:22 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 16, 2015, 02:38:55 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 16, 2015, 02:34:24 PM
Some of my nieces' classmates were ramping up as early as 9, although she's had a graduated entry monitored closely by my sister.  I think by 12, if you're not totally plugged in with social media, you're treated worse than I am on Languish about voicemail.   :D

You mean they still bother to verbally taunt people? I mean, nasty tweets won't have much impact if she's not online to read them.  :hmm:

No they still have an impact, I'm pretty sure.

If half your classmates have been sending nasty tweets about you, they'll be referencing them and snickering about them to your face when you're in school whether you read them or not. You won't even know what they're talking about, so anything you do to defend yourself will be hillarious because you'll be missing the point and the context. You'll be the hillariously ignorant outsider, perfect fodder for another round of mocking tweets for the next day.

Dear God! We need to ban the Internets!

No, we just need to not tolerate bullying.

Lucky for us, modern non-cro-magnon schools have in fact recognized this and the culture has shifted so that there isn't much tolerance for the kind of things you seem to be such a fan of, like tormenting kids for being "different" in a fashion you don't approve of...

Quote from: derspiess on January 16, 2015, 02:46:44 PM
So I see.

Up to you how to raise your own kids obviously, but I think it's probably worthwhile to try to understand the role social media plays for today's kids. As you say, at some point not having access will make you "a total weirdo," so completely avoiding it is probably a pretty stark scenario for the kid.

At the same time, it's pretty clear that the social dynamics of bullying can play themselves out pretty well via social media, and not just for kids. Online harassment is a thing, obviously.

For my part, my kid's young enough that I don't have to worry about it for a while. In fact, I expect the technology will be different by the time he's old enough for it to matter; but I also expect that bullying - by which I mean systematic cruelty endorsed or at least ignored by the social group - is going to manifest itself one way or the other.

Quote from: derspiess on January 16, 2015, 02:46:44 PM
So I see.

What's your copy of The Modern Parents' Handbook of Amish 19th Century Child Rearing say, d?

Quote from: Berkut on January 16, 2015, 02:01:49 PM
.....

Parents should teach their children to have empathy and respect for others, and not physically or mentally abuse them in an effort to obtain the social acceptance they fear they cannot achieve on their own.

It is a crazy thought, I know.

I'm not sure that'll work too well, given I think the wider society helps shapes parents and their conduct; you have to be mean, competitive and kick the other guy when he's down to succeed?

Quote from: Jacob on January 16, 2015, 02:55:15 PM
Up to you how to raise your own kids obviously, but I think it's probably worthwhile to try to understand the role social media plays for today's kids. As you say, at some point not having access will make you "a total weirdo," so completely avoiding it is probably a pretty stark scenario for the kid.

No shit.  That's why I'm listening to you ladies prattle on about it.  Taking mental notes and all that.

QuoteAt the same time, it's pretty clear that the social dynamics of bullying can play themselves out pretty well via social media, and not just for kids. Online harassment is a thing, obviously.

I guess.

QuoteFor my part, my kid's young enough that I don't have to worry about it for a while. In fact, I expect the technology will be different by the time he's old enough for it to matter; but I also expect that bullying - by which I mean systematic cruelty endorsed or at least ignored by the social group - is going to manifest itself one way or the other.

To think, back in my day you had to use a shitty dial-up modem on your C-64 to connect to a BBS to post mean messages about people's clothes or hair or weight.  Maybe in a few years you can just think it and it pops up on some holographic screen in front of them.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 16, 2015, 03:00:26 PM

Quote from: derspiess on January 16, 2015, 02:46:44 PM
So I see.

What's your copy of The Modern Parents' Handbook of Amish 19th Century Child Rearing say, d?

"Go to church."

Quote from: derspiess on January 16, 2015, 02:29:11 PM
Wouldn't parents be privy to that?  Or are you saying kids are told about practice times & whatnot and parents are not?

Yeah, happens all the time.

I am beginning to think the disconnect is your kids are not old enough yet for you to know how much of the communication they will have will be over social media.  And really who knows what kind of social media once they get to that age.

The point is shutting out of what has been become essential is no solution at all.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 16, 2015, 03:47:00 PM
The point is shutting out of what has been become essential is no solution at all.

Working fine so far :P

Quote from: Ideologue on January 16, 2015, 02:18:38 AM
The worst thing that ever happened to modern society is the erosion of the concept of acceptable losses.

Actually, I agree with this. A risk-free society would be hell on earth.

Quote from: derspiess on January 16, 2015, 03:05:45 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 16, 2015, 03:00:26 PM

Quote from: derspiess on January 16, 2015, 02:46:44 PM
So I see.

What's your copy of The Modern Parents' Handbook of Amish 19th Century Child Rearing say, d?

"Go to church."

And we all know how bullying isn't a problem in 19th century Amish churches.

Quote from: Martinus on January 16, 2015, 01:31:10 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 16, 2015, 01:28:23 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 16, 2015, 01:26:08 PM
I've heard about her before. It's very sad but the answer is not to lock kids up in their homes.

Who suggested that is the answer?

This comes back to the same point as was made earlier in this thread (before it went to bullying). People no longer understand the concept of understandable losses. You can't build your rules to provide everybody with 100% protection.

How many kids like that are there? One in 10,000? One in a million?

All I said was I didn't care if a kid got hit by a car every now and again.

I don't think you understand what ostracism can do to people, especially young people.  And yeah, tons of young people committed suicide before Facebook.  It's never really been an epidemic, but they're more susceptible to it--partly because their brains are still mushy, but also because unlike an adult they lack the option to walk away from a negative situation.

QuoteI let my 9-year-old ride the subway alone. I got labeled the 'world's worst mom.'
I founded the "Free Range Kids" movement to get parents to let their kids go. It's great for children, but society hasn't gotten the memo.
By Lenore Skenazy

Lenore Skenazy is host of the reality show "World's Worst Mom" on the Discovery Life Channel. She is also a blogger at Free Range Kids and Reason.


Two Maryland parents stand accused of doing the unthinkable: They trusted their kids, 10 and 6, to walk home from the park. The children got about halfway there when someone saw them and called the cops.

For this, parents Danielle and Alexander Meitiv have been visited by the police and child protective services. Their kids were interviewed at school, without their consent. CPS even threatened to take their children away.

All because we are having a hysterical moment in American society. We believe children are in danger every single second they are unsupervised.

I learned this firsthand six years ago, when I let my 9-year-old ride the subway alone (we live in New York). I wrote a column about it. Two days later I found myself decried as "America's worst mom" on the "Today" show, MSNBC, Fox News and NPR.

That weekend I started my Free-Range Kids blog to explain my philosophy. Obviously, I love safety: My kid wears a helmet, got strapped into a car seats, always wears his seat belt. But I don't believe kids need a security detail every time they leave the house. When society thinks they do — and turns that fear into law — loving, rational parents get arrested.

Six years of daily letters from readers later,  I know my work is only too necessary. Consider these examples:

Over the summer, a South Carolina mom who sent her 9-year-old to play in a popular park was arrested for not supervising her child. She was held overnight in jail, and her daughter spent 17 days as a ward of the state.

In the fall, an Austin, Tex., mom who let her 6-year-old play outside within view of the house was also visited by the cops and then child protective services. CPS interviewed her kids individually and even asked her 8-year-old daughter "if she had ever seen movies with people's private parts," the mom told me. "So my daughter, who didn't know that things like that exist, does now. Thank you, CPS."

Just this week, I got an e-mail from a mom in Maryland. She'd left her 10-year-old in the car, watching her 1-year-old, while she — the mom — ran into the grocery. Someone called the cops.

"I told him my daughter is responsible enough to watch her sleeping sister for 10 minutes, that I've never done it in the past but needed to get a few items, and [that] I didn't want to wake her sister for that short a period of time," she said. "He told me that a murderer that has never murdered anyone in the past doesn't make him less of a murderer."

Look at that language. Murder. As if the mom had intentionally endangered her child's life.

The authorities act as if these children are "lucky" they made it out alive. But the facts don't bear that out. Childhood abduction is exceedingly rare. As of 1999, the latest year for which we have statistics, the number of American children abducted in what's known as a "stereotypical kidnapping"  was 115, according to the Department of Justice. Of those, 40 percent, or about 50, were killed in a country of 72 million children under age 18.

Sadly, children are in far more danger of being abused, kidnapped or killed by their parents than by any stranger on the street.

That's why, when I interviewed Ernie Allen, then head of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, for my book, he told me, "We have been trying to debunk the myth of stranger danger." He added that the safest kids are the ones with self-confidence.

Consider that word. It isn't "parent-assisted-confidence." To become street smart and self-reliant requires spending some time doing things on your own. Like walking home from the park, once your parents let you.

On my television show "World's Worst Mom," I try to help parents do just that. I take parents who are too afraid to let their kids play on the front lawn, or go to a public bathroom by themselves (at age 13!) and make them let go. Then I whisk the kids off to play in the woods or walk to the park.

When they come tumbling back, happy and hungry, the parents do something surprising: They grin. They're so proud!

So, that is my prescription now for America, including — especially! — its cops and case workers: Instead of imagining the worst, send your kids out to do something you did at their age. You can even have them wait in the car a few minutes.

Reality will break through the terror. And maybe we'll stop criminalizing the parents who love their kids and also let them go.

I hope they win, but I'm not optomistic.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/free-range-parents-plan-to-file-lawsuit-after-police-pick-up-children/2015/04/14/ed4f7658-e2b7-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html

Quote'Free-range' parents plan to file lawsuit after police pick up children

By Donna St. George and Brigid Schulte April 14 

A D.C-based law firm will file suit and pursue "all legal remedies" to protect the rights of the Maryland parents whose two young children were taken into custody for more than five hours Sunday after someone reported them as they made their way home unsupervised from a Silver Spring park, the firm said Tuesday.

Danielle and Alexander Meitiv were "rightfully outraged by the irresponsible actions" of Maryland Child Protective Services and Montgomery County police, said attorney Matthew Dowd, of the firm Wiley Rein, in a written statement.

"We must ask ourselves how we reached the point where a parent's biggest fear is that government officials will literally seize our children off the streets as they walk in our neighborhoods," he said.

Dowd was not immediately available for comment Tuesday, but said through a spokeswoman that the firm would file the legal action "soon." He declined to say through the spokeswoman who the suit is being filed against. The firm is representing the family pro bono.

The Meitivs' children were picked up by police as they walked home from Ellsworth Park at 5 p.m. Sunday. Their parents had expected them home by 6 p.m. and Danielle Meitiv said they frantically searched for Rafi, 10, and Dvora, 6, before being notified at 8 p.m. that CPS had the children.

The statement issued Tuesday said the children were three blocks from their house when they were stopped by officers in three squad cars and "subjected to a terrifying detainment that no child should have to experience."

"Shockingly, the Meitiv children experienced this maltreatment at the hands of the very government officials who are entrusted to uphold the law and ensure that children in need are taken care of," it said.

The Meitivs are believers in a "free range" style of parenting, which holds that children learn to be self-reliant by progressively testing limits and being allowed to roam the world without hovering adults.

The statement alleged that the pair were detained in a police car for almost three hours, kept from their parents for over six hours without access to food, and "not returned to the parents until almost midnight on the night before school."

In an interview with The Washington Post, Danielle Meitiv said that her son told her the children were misled into believing police would take them home. Police had all the Meitivs' contact information and did not call the parents, or allow the children to call their parents, the statement alleges.

Danielle Meitiv said that she and her husband arrived at a CPS crisis center at 8:30 p.m. and were allowed to see their children at 10:30 p.m. and take them home. Meitiv said the family had to sign papers saying the children would not be unattended while CPS followed up on the case.

Montgomery County police said Monday that a call came in to check on the children's welfare shortly before 5 p.m. and that an officer found the children in a parking garage. Police said an officer saw a "homeless subject" who was "eyeing the children."

Police said the officer notified CPS, as is required in circumstances involving possible child abuse or neglect. After a series of calls, police say the children were left at CPS at 7:43 p.m. Police said the officer followed the direction of CPS in the matter.

CPS officials would not answer direct questions Monday, but issued a statement saying that "protecting children is the agency's number one priority. We are required to follow up on all calls to Child Protective Services and will continue to work in the best interest of all children."

The Sunday episode followed an earlier incident when the Meitiv children were picked up by police as they walked home from a different Silver Spring park, about a mile from their home. In both instances, callers reported the children to police.

In the earlier case, the parents were held responsible for "unsubstantiated neglect" and informed that CPS would keep a file on the family for at least five years.

Common sense prevails?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/state-seeks-to-clarify-views-about-young-children-walking-alone/2015/06/11/423ce72c-0b99-11e5-95fd-d580f1c5d44e_story.html

Quote

Md. officials: Letting 'free range' kids walk or play alone is not neglect

By Donna St. George June 11

Maryland officials have taken steps to clarify their views about children playing or walking alone outdoors in a new policy directive that says Child Protective Services should not be involved in such cases unless children have been harmed or face a substantial risk of harm.

The directive, part of a public statement to be issued Friday, follows a nationally debated case involving "free range" parents Danielle and Alexander Meitiv, who let their young children walk home alone from parks in Montgomery County.

The Meitivs say they have gradually allowed their son, Rafi, 10, and daughter, Dvora, 6, more freedom to walk on their own in areas they know. But police twice picked up the siblings as they made their way home in Silver Spring, and CPS neglect investigations ensued.

The Meitivs were cleared on appeal last month in one neglect case. They are awaiting a decision in the other, they say.

State officials did not comment Thursday on the Meitivs' experiences, saying such matters are confidential by law. But they stressed that they have no interest in trumping the individual choices parents make.

"We are not getting into the business of opining on parenting practices or child-rearing philosophies," said Katherine Morris, spokeswoman for the Maryland Department of Human Resources. "We don't view that as our role. We see our role as responding when a child is harmed or at a significant risk of harm. It's all about child safety."

The statement echoes that thought, saying the state agency is "mindful that every family applies its members' personal upbringing, life experiences and expectations to parenting, and it is not the department's role to pick and choose among child-rearing philosophies and practices."

Morris said the updated directive, which focuses on CPS screening practices, does not reflect a new position. It instead comes from a regular agency review process as "additional clarification" to the public and local departments of social services, she said. It aims to ensure consistency and alignment with laws and regulations.

The document replaces a similar one issued last year and includes new sections on unattended and unsupervised children.

Touching on an issue central to the Meitiv case, it says: "Children playing outside or walking unsupervised does not meet the criteria for a CPS response absent specific information supporting the conclusion that the child has been harmed or is at substantial risk of harm if they continue to be unsupervised."

The document lists factors that CPS considers, including the nature of any injury, any parental actions taken to manage risks, a child's age, and the period of time and setting involved.

Danielle Meitiv said Thursday that the state's move could be a positive development but that it does not go far enough.

"I'm glad they're clarifying it, but it still doesn't give reassurance to parents that their desire to give their children freedom will be respected," she said.

The state directive comes two months after the Meitivs' last involvement with CPS, on April 12, when CPS and police held the Meitiv children for more than five hours. The family has said it intends to file a lawsuit.

Matthew Dowd, the family's attorney, said the state's updated policy "validates our position all along that there was never any neglect or potential neglect with the Meitiv children."

Dowd said that although the directive could provide CPS workers with guidance, it remains short on detail. It lists factors that CPS would consider, for example, with "no insight as to how CPS will apply those factors," he said.

"I think it's written so broadly it will depend on how CPS implements this policy moving forward," he said. "It doesn't give you any guidance where they will draw the line in the future."

Morris, the state DHR spokeswoman, said each potential neglect scenario is unique and CPS staff are trained to go through an extensive interview process. "I don't think communities would want us to do a one-size-fits-all approach to assess whether a situation requires CPS to respond," she said.

The new directive also addresses a state law on unattended children that says children younger than 8 in a building, enclosure or vehicle must be with a responsible person who is at least 13.

When the Meitiv case came to light, county CPS officials said they could look to that state law for guidance during investigations. But many who have followed the case have questioned whether the law applies because it does not mention children outdoors.

The new policy directive says the law was originally written as part of a fire code.

"The statute does not apply to children left unattended outdoors," it says.

Dowd said CPS told the Meitivs the law did apply to their circumstances. The position that it does not apply is "long overdue," he said, and "doesn't undo the harm already caused by CPS's improper investigations and detainments."

Morris said she could not say whether such an assertion was made and declined to comment.

So glad. CPS in Texas has historically made it its job to be as hostile and adversarial as possible with child care providers of all varieties. To them you are a monster just for daring to care for children. It is good to see a little push back from the 'all adults are demons' mentality that dominates these bureaucracies.

Quote from: Warspite on January 16, 2015, 02:16:33 PM
I do find it ironic the suggestion that to counter the pussification of society we need to encourage more people to be cnuts.

It's inevitable.  Can't hold back the tide.

Quote from: Razgovory on January 16, 2015, 06:53:40 AM
I was bullied mercilessly as a child. :(  The psychiatric thought that it might have caused me to go mad. :lmfao:

And? Didn't you learn to fight the bullies?
That's an important step in life.
It is good for you, because you learn to defend yourself and stand for what is right, and good for the bullies because they realize the 2nd law of thermodynamics apply in social life. The more you push the more resistance you get.

Quote from: Siege on June 15, 2015, 11:33:33 AM
And? Didn't you learn to fight the bullies?
That's an important step in life.
It is good for you, because you learn to defend yourself and stand for what is right, and good for the bullies because they realize the 2nd law of thermodynamics apply in social life. The more you push the more resistance you get.

Pretty sure that law has nothing to do with Thermodynamics but rather it is Newton's Third Law of Motion :P

Quote from: Siege on June 15, 2015, 11:33:33 AM
And? Didn't you learn to fight the bullies?

I was bullied but I did indeed eventually stand up to the bully and kick his ass. :cool:

It was like George McFly in Back to the Future when he suddenly changes and knocks Biff out. :showoff:

Quote from: Siege on June 15, 2015, 11:33:33 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on January 16, 2015, 06:53:40 AM
I was bullied mercilessly as a child. :(  The psychiatric thought that it might have caused me to go mad. :lmfao:

And? Didn't you learn to fight the bullies?
That's an important step in life.
It is good for you, because you learn to defend yourself and stand for what is right, and good for the bullies because they realize the 2nd law of thermodynamics apply in social life. The more you push the more resistance you get.

I think his problem is that he didn't learn when not to fight. Also, you're probably thinking of Newton's Second Law. The 2d law of thermodynamics states that entropy increases over time.

Edit- Newton's Third Law- for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Stop nitpicking. My arguments are always right and cannot be broken.

Maybe I am misremembering because that Newton guy pirated the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to "invent" his 3rd law.
Plagiarism is everywhere these days, man.

Quote from: Siege on June 15, 2015, 12:01:58 PM
Maybe I am misremembering because that Newton guy pirated the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to "invent" his 3rd law.
Plagiarism is everywhere these days, man.

Sometimes you make my brain hurt Siege.  This is definitely one of those days.

Quote from: Siege on June 15, 2015, 12:01:58 PM
Stop nitpicking. My arguments are always right and cannot be broken.

Maybe I am misremembering because that Newton guy pirated the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to "invent" his 3rd law.
Plagiarism is everywhere these days, man.

:lol:

Just as Maryland has an attack of common sense, Florida picks up the gauntlet and arrests parents for getting stuck and traffic, thus causing their son to be "neglected" for 90 minutes while playing basketball in their yard. :bleeding:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/parents-charged-neglect-after-leaving-5891891