As someone who has punched multiple bullies into the face, I can tell you it does stop it quite efficiently.
Two of them basically instantly switched to never again daring to acknowledge that I even exist, for the remaining >5 years of being on the same school. The remainder wasn't smart enough to stop instantly and thus got multiple beatings. There's always the one kid who needs to touch the hot stove multiple times until they realize it hurts ;)
Would I recommend it to children now that some decades have passed and I am an adult? I don't know.
But it does work, ideally if applied without prior threatening and in quick succession. People really don't like having multiple fists in their face when they didn't expect it to happen.
This method works for the people who are able to do it (ability, personality, temperament). But it tends to reinforce the idea that those who can't take these steps somehow deserve to be bullied.
Maybe to a slight degree. There are some of those people with the abilities who are willing to stand up for others. Of course, the no tolerance (punish everyone) policies can promote bystanders to remain only bystanders.
^^^ this... What's funny is something a civics teacher said in 6th grade, "If you have the ability to intervene or help, you have the responsibility to do so." .. a few decades later, it's become "don't get involved, get a teacher or call the police."
Plenty of lives are saved every day by those that aren't police, but have the ability to intervene.
Examine for a minute why people remain bullied with such a simple solution. I am certain that every bullied child has heard about the solution of "just punch them in the face". They choose not to do so. Why? Is it just purely fear? A cursory glance would probably tell you no.
I'd argue that the number of bullied people who could give a bunch of bullies "multiple beatings" are.... few.
> I can tell you it does stop it quite efficiently.
Please avoid the patronizing tone. Your experience is not universal. I've personally witnessed victims escalating the conflict into much worse situations.
And it was that victim's choice to try to defend themself in the way that they did. It may have been better to choice a different option for that scenario. What we are talking about are zero tolerance policies that remove that choice by imposing unjust penalties for self defense. Just because it isn't work for one person doesn't mean we should remove that choice from everyone.
I use the word choice here, but the right to defend oneself is really a natural right.
> Please avoid the patronizing tone. Your experience is not universal.
I'm sorry, I did not mean to sound patronizing, but rather enabling for people in similar situations to be aware of the choices they have.
> I've personally witnessed victims escalating the conflict into much worse situations.
Of course punching someone in the face can always result in them falling in a really bad way and just being dead right away!
My experience comes from a schoolkid age where body weight and muscle strength were still low enough to make that rather unlikely I would guess. Even if something bad had happened, I was still below the ago of criminal responsibility, so while neglecting the emotional and physical consequences for other people, consequences for me would have been a slap on the wrist.
"No, bullying cannot be solved by the victims, otherwise it would not be a problem in the first place."
How do you think that works if zero tolerance policies punish the aggressor and victim equally, essentially preventing the victim from defending themself? And by your reasoning, then bullying shouldn't exist today because the school policies should prevent it, yet it's more rampant than ever.
I was bullied once. Eventually I fought back and gave the kid a bloody nose. Guess what - he was nicer to me and to other kids too. Prior to that he had no empathy. That experience changed him. I know others with similar experiences too.
> if zero tolerance policies punish the aggressor and victim equally
I never said that. Please don't make up strawmans.
> And by your reasoning, then bullying shouldn't exist today because the school policies should prevent it, yet it's more rampant than ever.
I never said that.
> I was bullied once. Eventually I fought back and gave the kid a bloody nose. Guess what - he was nicer to me and to other kids too. Prior to that he had no empathy. That experience changed him. I know others with similar experiences too.
Funny how I only hear the "stood up to bullies succesfully" story and never the other ones. See my other comment.
"I never said that. Please don't make up strawmans."
That's not a strawman, that's the definition of zero tolerance policies in schools - both parties in a fight get punished the same.
"And by your reasoning, then bullying shouldn't exist today because the school policies should prevent it, yet it's more rampant than ever."
'I never said that.'
What you did say is that victims can't solve bullying and that school policies should. What we clearly see is that bullying is a growing issue under zero tolerance policies because the victim is given disincentive to defend themselves - it becomes a vicious cycle that protects bullies. It also is at odds with my personal experiences.
If the zero tolerance policy isn't the school policy you were speaking about, then what is? You imply that school policies should prevent bullying, but we clearly don't see that.
"Funny how I only hear the 'stood up to bullies succesfully' story and never the other ones. See my other comment."
You do hear of the other stories - kids committing suicide or shooting up a school because they are trapped in a failed zero tolerance system that leaves them with seemingly all-or-nothing options. You also witness kids just "taking it" if you are observant enough.
So far you seem to be just trolling - offering neither arguments nor facts that support zero tolerance systems or refute the facts that I, and many other on here, have presented against those systems.
"No, don't twist my words: I'm against the culture of pushing the burden of defending oneself onto the victim. Because it's literally victim blaming."
Then why did you respond the way you did? I never blamed victims. My post was that zero tolerance policies prevent a victim from defending themself. You said that victims cannot stop the bullying and that the school needs policies to do so, but without the police.
I agree with you that zero tolerance is stupid and that victims should be able t fight back. But is there any evidence that bullying is more rampant than ever? All statistics I have seen point to kids being more well behaved, less violence, less drugs, fewer teen pregnancies ect.
I agree that most of those have been decreasing (yay!). Unfortunately, bullying is said to affect 1 in 4 students during their school careers, the highest it's ever been.
>How do you think that works if zero tolerance policies punish the aggressor and victim equally, essentially preventing the victim from defending themself?
Sorry, I don't really understand your point. eeZah7Ux seemed to me to be saying that the victim should run and report it to the school. I don't see how a zero tolerance policy would punish the victim in that case.
The main problem is that it's your word against their's. So if nothing happened that would be caught on video, say just verbal bullying or it was in a blind spot, then nothing will be done because there's no proof.
Now the scenarios I've been talking about are where the bullying has become physical. Most schools that have a zero tolerance policy will punish both people who were involved in the fight/pushing/etc regardless of who started it, again it's mostly due to lack of proof, but the policy expressly forbids any violence. So even if someone punches you first and continues to attack you, the policy means that if you punch back you are in violation too and will be punished. So if you are in a corner and can't run away, the policy says you just have to take it without fighting back or get punished for defending yourself.
So the same will be for your scenario of running and telling the school. For one, you have to escape that bully and hope you're faster than them (before you get trapped/ tackled and it turns physical) or you both end up being punished. Then you have to have some sort of evidence that shows you were innocent and the bully person was unprovoked. Incidents without proof generally result in no action from the school due to that lack of proof, so the bully will continue tormenting you.
>For one, you have to escape that bully and hope you're faster than them (before you get trapped/ tackled and it turns physical) or you both end up being punished.
You have this same problem with fighting back. You have to hope you're a better fighter, if you're not you will be pummeled. The benefit of running is that very quickly you will reach other people, so you don't have to run very far. With fighting it could continue for a long time and you might get fatigued before the bully. When I took Taekwondo, my instructor said the best thing to do if you're about to get into a fight is run.
How many scenarios at school are there were 2 kids are alone and no one can see them or is in earshot? One technique that might be good, is to teach kids who are worried about being bullied that they should try to stay in a group, or within earshot of others, so they can call for help if they get attacked. And to be aware of surroundings and the environment so that they always have an escape route, they don't get stuck in a corner. Avoiding being stuck in a corner could also help if you're fighting, it gives you more maneuverability. This advice would help weak kids too, not just strong kids.
>Incidents without proof generally result in no action from the school due to that lack of proof, so the bully will continue tormenting you.
What if you create a diary with times and dates of each incident?
Also, what if you can record proof? Start an audio recorder (and inform the bully if you're in an all-party consent state).
Running is a good option, but I'm saying it shouldn't be the only option.
It doesn't need to be only 2 kids. The zero tolerance policy has made it so that bystanders won't get involved because they will get into trouble too if they are physically breaking up a fight.
A diary won't really mean much. It's still your words, but now they're just written down.
Recording could be good. It depends on the state laws as well as school policy. You might not have to inform them in some all party states, because many have exceptions for recording if you believe a crime of violence is likely to occur. The bigger problem is if that exception doesn't exist and there are other people around, you need to inform them or get their consent. If they aren't around, the bully knows you're recording and may take the device from you to destroy the recording.
The typical victims of bullying are the ones that don't act to stop it. That's why they're being bullied in the first place.
I don't want to victim blame, because they are victims... but it's often enabled by their own character traits. They'll be greatly helped throughout life if they acquire the ability to defend themselves.
I generally agree. One thing to point out though, is that under zero tolerance policies, some victims who do have the ability to defend themselves are forced to work within a regulatory framework that would severely punish them for doing so, to the point that being the victim of a bully is less harmful or more tolerable than being a victim of the system. Likewise, those who don't have the ability to defend themselves would be less motivated to learn those skills if they know the system would punish them (why learn it if you're not allowed to use it?).
> "allowed to defend themselves"
> "punching my bully"
...and this is what most bullies would say. No, bullying cannot be solved by the victims, otherwise it would not be a problem in the first place.
Bullying needs to be stopped by the school - and without calling in armed bullies to stop the bullies.