http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-gside29.html New York City's board of education has announced plans to open the nation's first public high school for gay/lesbian/transgender students. It is raising a bit of controversy here as the Board of Education was trying to do this quietly to avoid protests, and word of it leaked. I think this is a case of the Board of Education going overboard in trying to do the right thing. There is a such thing as TOO much political correctness. I don't think all-gay high schools in this day and age would be any better than all-black or all-hispanic or all-male or all female public high schools. In any case like that, it is segregation, not de-segregation. I don't think it benefits society. But maybe it does provide gay students with a place to go to school where they won't be harassed or persecuted. what do you think>?241 responses total.
This response has been erased.
re: #1...that would be FORCED segregation. No gay can be required to go to this school if they don't wish to. This is an alternative public high school for gays/lesbians/transgenders who may wish to attend it. There was a report on the local news where one official was complaining that they hadn't decided an acceptable means of determing if a student is gay. This school will only have a couple of hundred students and it is possible some kids might falsely out themselves to get transferred tothere from the other much larger, overcrowded public schools. So now the question becomes, is a student gay because he SAYS he's gay, or do they require a doctor's evaluation be done or such?
For that matter, what if a straight kid wanted to go to this special school? Would they be legally allowed to stop him?
#3...that is another matter being debated. This high school is intended only for gay, lesbian, and transgender students. It will be of a limited size (like 200-300 students) no more. So they don't want straight kids going there, that is not its purpose. The purpose of the school is to provide an environment where gay kids can learn and be openly gay without being harassed or ridiculed. If they allowed straight kids in, would that not defeat its purpose?
I think it is better to deal with any discrimination against gays in the regular schools than to form a new school for the (self-appointed?) outcasts. Kids in school get harrasses for many things: even for being smart. Should they start schools just for smart kids? (Whoops, they already have: Brooklyn Technical HS, Stuyvesant, Bronx HS of Science. Well, at least these schools cater to students that really want to study.) But, overall, I think this is a bad idea. Social problems should be solved in the schools, not moved to ghettos.
Where will it end? Will they have a school for fat kids? A school for kids who wear "poor" clothes? People will find ways to tease others for *something*, no matter what it is. Even uniforms don't help because you can still find a way to pick on that person. While the idea is kind of cool, I also find it ridiculous. They can't stay sheltered their entire life, and they're going to have to learn to stand up for themselves at some point, just like the fat kids, the kids with glasses, the kids who suck at sports, the kids who wear the wrong jeans, etc. What happens when they go to college? Apply for a job? Are they going to create special universities and offices?
This response has been erased.
Right. By having special schools for gays, you're making it even harder for them to face discrimination when they move to the real world. This isn't the way to deal with a social problem.
They should just open a special high school for bullies and the stupid, so that people who have both the ability and desire to learn can do so without other factors holding them back. Oh, wait...
re #4: that's not the point. Of course, if they go to the trouble of creating a special school for gays, they would like to have only gays there, and having straight kids would tend to defeat the purpose. The point is, do they have the legal authority to *enforce* that purpose? If a straight kid wanted to go there adn was denied, how would that be any less discriminatory than rejecting a gay kid from a "straight" school?
But we do have segregated schools: all male/female schools, Catholic schools, shuls, schools for inner city kids, special education . . . I have friends that have a son that takes a lot of dance classes - like 10-15 hours a week (he's around 13) and he is taunted miserably in school. I don't know if he's gay - but if he is, I'd love to see him go to a school like this (or one performing art centered - wait, that's another segregation) to have less harassment.
Kids are going to be taunted about something or the other, regardless of whether they're gay or not. Who's to say that these kids won't be taunted in gay schools for say, having no fashion sense, or not exfoliating (ok, stereotypes, but you get my drift). Segregating them into a different school isn't going to make the problem of being taunted go away. And it's going to make them even more ill-equipped to face discrimination if they are faced with it when they leave school. When you talk about schools segregated for special education, or performing arts, you're talking about schools that provide a special type of education for students, who may be slow learners or more into the arts. That's understandable, you can't expect all schools to provide these benefits available, and it makes sense to have special schools for them. Will these gay schools be providing anything specific to teaching these students about their life-style that ordinary schools cannot provide? If so, yes, maybe there is some sort of rationale to having such a school. However, if all this school does that is different from other schools is to provide a haven from bullies and taunts, then in my opinion it is defeating one of the fundamental purposes of a school - equipping children to live a fulfilling life later.
it's a temporary haven which will create sheltered children. will it provide them with the tools that they're gonna need to deal with the bigoted assholes that they're gonna meet during the other 60 years of their lives? probably not. special schools for fat people next.
God I hope not. I was a fat kid - I learned to hold my own. But then, not all people are like me.
Yes, we have segregated schools, but they're privately funded. Public schools are, if I understand correctly, required not to discriminate based on various things, of which sexual orientation certainly should be one. I understand #0 to be saying that the proposed school will be publicly funded and run by the New York City Board of Education.
What about charter schools? Aren't they publicly funded?
This response has been erased.
I know you meant that tongue in cheek, but here in DC, they really ARE a success story.
This response has been erased.
It seems to me that any straight kid who wanted to go to this school would be allowed to go if they said they were gay. I somehow doubt the school would bother checking into it.
That would be teaching kids to lie...
Which is an extremely useful skill for kids to know . . .
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
I think the $ would be better spent getting to the bottom of this brain disorder. Gay teens should be conditioned to accept a hetrosexual lifestyle
This response has been erased.
Two issues I have with this: 1. A gay high school might not necessarily turn out kids who can't deal with being harassed or worse. Chances are they want to go to the Gay school because they're tired of getting beaten up every day in the regular school. And I'd wager part of the curriculum of the gay school is to teach kids HOW to stand up for themselves and not get beaten down once they get out in the real world. By the time they graduate they might be proud of who they are as homosexuals and be able to deal with it when they encounter prejudice. 2. It's normal to question one's sexuality in the teen years (hmm, I've been reading too many ed books). What if a kid has a year or two phase where they think they're gay, then by senior year get it sorted out and realize they aren't? High school seems a little young to get such a big issue as sexuality set in stone.
This response has been erased.
At my High School in California has never had problems with homosexuals being beaten or outcast here there is just friendship sounds corny but were mostly just friends
Sadly, Tod, many teachers and administrators choose to turn a blind eye to bullying and harassment. I think it's only now getting to where they might do something about it.
r29: exactly. r31: what will happen if the teachers and administrators of the gay highschool don't do enough to prevent the bulldykes from stealing lunch money from the nellies? HUH?
If I had a gay child that was being harassed, thus effecting their ability to get an an education, and they wanted to go to this school, I'd back it.
resp:21 - If you believe the Kinsey scale, almost everyone is at least a little bit bisexual so they wouldnt *really* be lying. re: bullies. I think most harrassment goes on outside of the view of the teachers and administrators. Also, by the teenage years, most harrassment is social and verbal. It isnt like the teachers can make the popular kids invite the gay kids to parties. I like the idea of having many different kinds of high schools in a district. But, it does seem odd to have an all gay highschool. Maybe they could have a small highschool in the same location where part of the curriculum would include discussions about sexuality and acceptance of different sexual orientations. This might help the gay students learn to accept their own sexuality without feeling the need to isolate themselves.
This response has been erased.
I h8 fags.
The new all-gay high school is going to be located in Astor Place in Manhattan, next to the East Village. A nice area. There are kids going to overcrowded schools in the Bronx or Queens, who might think outing themselves, truthfully or lying, to be a small price to pay to get transferred to a a nice small school in a cool neighborhood in Manhattan. This is why they have to decide what means they will use to determine which kids asking for transfer are really gay. A note from a doctor or therapist who has seen the student? Some kind of written exam? Also it won't be "all-gay" as the guidelines for the school specifically include transgenders and cross dressers. And contrary to common myth, not all crossdressers are gay. Some guys who dress like women are perfectly straight. But they'd be allowed to attend this school, as they'd get ridiculed for crossdressing in a regular school as much as gays would
Maybe more. So why can't a straight person attend this school? Since sexuality is not a deciding factor, I would assume that they should allow straight kids too. Or kids who aren't sure of their sexuality. I bullying is what they're worried about, I think it would be easier to control in a school that was predominantly gay.
This response has been erased.
From abcnews.com: On its Web site, the Hetrick-Martin Institute describes the Harvey Milk School as "the nation's first accredited public high school designed to meet the needs of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth (LGBTQ)."
That is a ridiculous statement. I know a cross dresser. He just likes to wear women's clothing. I don't - am I also insane?
probably.
Hmmmm. Eddie Izzard is a cross dresser. Doesn't seem insane or suicidal to me . . .matter of fact, he's talented to beat the band.
This response has been erased.
Hm. So they welcome Questioning students as well. Again, what happens if the kid realizes they aren't gay?
Segregation? Re: 44 - Eddie Izzard is a British comedian. Exceedingly funny.
There's such a thing as TOO much political correctness? Yay! Somebody said it! Better be careful of the Bleeding Heart Brigade, though. Segregation can be a good thing if it's done properly. No-one worries in England that kids will grow up unable to deal with Protestants or atheists if they go to Catholic school, for example (which isn't to say there aren't religious people who can't deal w/ atheists or vice versa). I went to a segregated school, for kids with disabilities. They had me walking within three months when previously i couldn't work at all, and by this time I was five. My parents had me transferred to a state (equivalent of US public) school, though, when they found out that the special school hadn't taught me to read until age 7. I remember teaching my class teacher how to use the computer (an 8-bit Acorn "BBC" computer specifically desinged for the educational market) *after* she came back from a two-day training course on, you guessed it, how to use computers. I was also top of the class in maths (which anyone who knew me in mainstream school would have found laughable, if it weren't for the fact that some of the kids had mental difficulties). So segregated/special schools have advantages and disadvantages. If the NY BoE think this is going to stop bullying, though, they are dreaming.
Straight teenagers will "out" themselves, pretend to be gay, just to go to
a school that may (or may not) be less crowded? Is that progress?
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/gayschool030728.html
"I think everybody feels that it's a good idea because some of the
kids who are gays and lesbians have been constantly harassed and
beaten in other schools," Mayor Michael Bloomberg said at a briefing
today. "It lets them get an education without having to worry. It
solves a discipline problem. And from a pedagogical point of view,
this administration and previous administrations have thought it
was a good idea and we'll continue with that."
The Harvey Milk school was actually begun in 1984. Teachers were paid by the
city but the Hetrick-Martin Institute bore most of the costs and managed it.
So there is 20 years worth of data and experience that I presume the NY BoE
is considering.
When the school first opened, it had a hard time getting teachers. Eventually
an ultra-Orthodox Jewish woman was asked to teach there, which caused her an
ethical dilemma. After discussing the matter first with her husband and then
with her Rabbi, she still was at a loss over what to do. So it was decided to
ask the learned and wise head Rabbi in Israel. Word came back as follows:
What? You have an opportunity to teach children that no one else
wants to teach? It's a mitzvah!
Which just goes to show us that you have to focus on what's really important.
You would say that, you fag.
New York Times also had an editorial on the subject Sunday: The needs of gay teenagers can best be served by making sure that they, like all New York students, are able to attend regular public high schools in safety, free from bullying. Organizers maintain they would be happy to see applications from any student who wants to attend Harvey Milk, whatever his or her sexual orientation, but the school's stated mission needs to reflect that, in the same way that other small "boutique" schools around the city draw students interested in particular careers, course work or unique learning environments. A school like Harvey Milk could also serve as a safe haven and short-term solution for gay teenagers and others who are most traumatized by mistreatment at their schools. In the long term, though, history has taught us the best way to fight discrimination is to dismantle it where it occurs. [http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/03/opinion/03SUN2.html?th]
re: #48...lk, the harvey milk "school" has never been a full fledged school before. What you refer to was a "program", which offered classes/services to gay students who were technically enrolled elsewhere. There is a huge difference between a part time program and a full fledged full time public school, which is what this is being expanded into.
Such as who gets to be quarterback on the football team?
I find the idea delightful- imagine what would happen to homophobia, if "straight" kids started trying to "pass" as gay to get in... And more, what would happen to *their* homophobia, in the long run, after spending a lot of time discovering that gay teens are teens first...
Re #29: "Isn't it the job of the teachers and principal to address bullies and school harrassment?" Since you have to ask that question, I assume you never went to a public school. Teachers and the administration turn a blind eye to harassment because it helps them beat down the kids who are showing signs of being different.
is that a fact?
re 54 BZZZT! Wrong answer! You are forgetting that most teachers are liberals and as such believe in free thought and fredom of action. No, that isn't right either. I think most teachers would intervene if they knew there was a problem. They do not have time to see the problem, nor to deal with every problem. Kids have to grow up learning to deal with these problems on their own, even interveneing themselves if they see a problem no one is handling. The teachers can't do it all, and niether can the parents.
While I agree that school is a place to learn how to handle your own problems, I also see it as a place where they should learn period. If that is being jeapordized because of whatever, an intervention must be made.
This response has been erased.
Re #56: Maybe where you lived teachers were mostly liberals, but most of mine were conservative. Some of them even ranted at length about what those dirty liberals were doing to the country. Re #58: Well, I can only speak from my own experience. Teachers didn't care how much I got teased, but when I got frustrated and lashed out in retaliation I invariably got in trouble. Eventually I figured out that trying to stick up for myself just made things worse, and just took it. It's a lesson I learned too well; to this day I have a lot of trouble sticking up for myself in situations where I've been wronged. Incidentally, anyone who says "if you ignore it, it'll stop" is full of shit. People who say that were clearly never teased as children.
This response has been erased.
Re 58: I agree. It won't pass. Same thing happened to me.
re59: tough shit, fatso.
Re #60: Yeah, pretty much. It helped that a lot of the kids who were doing it either had rich, well-respected parents or were on the football team, the two things that will guarantee you kid gloves treatment in any small town school. There wasn't a lot my parents could do about it, really. And no, I don't really think an "all gay" school is a great idea either. But I heard people saying that it's the teachers' jobs to make sure kids like that are treated with tolerance, and while that might technically be their job it just doesn't happen in the real world.
This response has been erased.
Yeah, I should have gone into Football instead of wrestling and baseball. Coach was real upset cause he was a good freind of my fathers adn was expecting me to be in that front line. tough. And yes the Football team got the glory. WE were the number one class C team in the nation at one time, with the longest winning streak in history. And I had to put up with my share of bullies. I got in two fights that I can recall and lost both. But I never let the bullies win. You learn to stand your ground, take your licks, adn move on. If you don't, you won't survive. Sure it hurts, and you will suffer with decisions you make all thru life. I still hurt to think about a decision I made in grade school that hurt a girls feelings. It was stupid, it wasn't worth anything in the long run, but it still bothers me from time to time. (she gave me a present for christmas, adn I traded it with another student for something I liked better. She found out and was extremely hurt by it. She had put a lot of thought into buying that 3 dollar model for me.) SO get over it doesn't make it. You still have to learn to live with it.
Actually, I think how much you get teased does depend on your behavior. I went all the way through public school with a feminine first name, and almost never got teased. Occasionally someone would try, it would fall flat and that would be the end of it. I knew a kid with a substantially less weird name who got teased nonstop about it. (Hmmm, I guess he survived - he seems to be an associate professor in biochemistry at McGill.) However, I don't think this is useful information for a person being teased. I'm not sure it's a learnable skill. I just always believed that anyone trying to tease me about my name was making an obvious idiot of themselves, and I believed it with absolute conviction, so it was true.
AHAHA< I JUST NOTICED: WHILE GLOSSING OVER THESE POSTS< LETTING SOME WORDS GET IN MY MIND AND JUMBLED UP: JAN HAS A GIRL"S NAME! AHAHAHa, HEY< JAN< WHAT "S WITH YOUR GIRLS" Name>
Re #65: Standing my ground got me suspended on one occasion, and detention on others, and quickly got me labelled as a troublemaker. I learned my lessons after that: 1. People in authority don't care about fairness, and 2. Sticking up for myself just makes things worse.
This response has been erased.
I was also teased a lot as a kid. I was beat up as a kid on a regular basis. For two years in elementary school, I did all that I could to refuse to go outside during recess, prefering to stay inside and read, because I didn't get hit when I was inside reading. I was *forced* to go outside, and then I got beat up. No one did anything to help me. Not the teachers, the playground supervisors, the principal, my parents, no one. I was supposed to figure it out for myself. (And I did. I got older. It hasn't happened again since I graduated from high school.) However, that was a long time ago. It doesn't work that way any more. My 1st grader, in Clinton, kissed another 1st grader last year, with her approval and consent, and was talked to by the principal. They don't allow physical contact between kids at all on the playground. They don't allow teasing, either. Things are a lot better on school playgrounds, in my opinion. But it has nothing to do with high schools at all. I can't imagine high schools can effectively monitor social interactions between students. Maybe I'm wrong... if they can't, as I suspect, I can see why New York might experiment with a high school for gay students. As someone who had some bad school experiences, I can say just about any alternative would have been better for me. I would do just about anything to prevent my son from having to live through what I did.
How can you play games without physical contact? What do kids do during recess?
They play on swings and slides, they play kickball and the like, baseball, marbles, I don't know what all. They just don't play football or wrestle, as I understand it.
The problem is in high school that the bullying is often not physical but, rather, verbal. And there isnt anything the teachers can do about that since they probably dont even get to see it for the most part. I can remember being teased as a child. I mostly ignored it. And it went away. It helped that I wasnt alone though. I had two other friends who also were teased by the more popular girls (only more popular because while our little group had 3, their little group had 5). So I think the answer to being teased is to find some other kids who are being teased and then hang out with them. Of course that is pretty much what those boys at Columbine did so maybe that technique doesnt work to well for everyone.
This response has been erased.
Actually hiding in a special school can help them cope with bad treatment by helping them form a support network. Isnt that *really* the best way to deal with such things?
I don't think a support network would result. You build a support network when you and other people facing the same adversity get together to help fight issues, in this case bullies. If you're in a special school, there's less reason, if any at all, to actually form a support network. And relying on a support network to get you through life is unrealistic. Networking is important, I agree, but not the sole solution to life's problems
This response has been erased.
All girl and all boy schools seem to get supported. I wonder why, and I wonder how many of those same reasons wouldn't apply to homosexual children. Maybe the issue, the real issue folks have, is they don't want to endorse any offical support for homosexuality.
This response has been erased.
Being harassed for being homosexual would qualify as a distraction from scholastic activities, I'd think. Maybe even a more intense distraction than being a blonde 14 year old dealing with little boys staring at your size C breasts.
yeah...nature pretty much sucks.
This response has been erased.
re80 and fatsos are openly harrassed in our society!
I am sure some people don't want to see homosexuality endorsed, and oppose a school for homosexuals on those grounds. I'm sure others are all for a gay school in order to get the homosexuals away from their (they hope) heterosexual kids, "so they don't go giving ideas to *my* kids". There'll be some parents who force their kids to go to the gay school. Some will hope their kids *will* be gay. Others will want to keep their kids away from kids they might have sex with. Some will probably send their kids there to have them preach against the immoral gays. I wonder how the New York Public School System would deal with that one? None of these possibilities, nor the one mentioned in resp:80, cancel out any of the arguments for or against a gay school. There are probably good reasons to have one, and good reasons to oppose having one.
..and then there will be the macho bigots who hangout outside the gay school after school for some good old fashioned gay bashing.
Re #74: I don't know if I agree with that. My experience was that bullying was worst in junior high, tapered off in high school, and I can only think of one instance in college of what I'd call "bullying". I'm not sure that being exposed to bullying in school does anything to prepare people for the real world, because unless you're talking about prison or redneck bars the real world just isn't like junior high school. For me I think it actually made the real world harder for me to deal with; it caused me to develop some social anxieties I'm still trying to overcome.
The UN was just blown up. And it's the US's fault, because they're the adminstration of the host country, and are therefore in charge of security.
This response has been erased.
We had a small asphalted yard for the girls and a bigger one for the boys with high chainlink fences around them (to keep us from escaping). We had no playground equipment or balls (someone might hurt themself). We were allowed jumpropes and circle games, and we traded Christmas seals (at a Jewish school). The boys traded baseball cards. They were allowed to throw them. The teachers watched every move. Nobody bullied anyone. The best Christmas seals had glitter or velvet. They came in punchout books.
People who say "kids should just get used to it" DON'T GET IT. School isn't like work, or life, or anything else. There are legal protections for workers, and almost everyone has the option of getting a new job if they don't care for the environment. In real life, you can leave; work is a reasonably natural environment in that respect. Schools are the exact opposite: students are trapped by mandatory attendance laws and appear to have next to no legal or institutional protections at all against harassment by peers. They are caged up like animals and sometimes not treated much better. Today's schools are like prisons in more ways than just their architecture. At the extreme, the option is to drop out. However, dropping out of school is very prejudicial. Failing to get a good GPA makes it very difficult to get into college, and having only a GED is a serious black mark. Dropping out to get relief from chronic harassment is close to educational suicide. It shouldn't surprise anyone that teen suicide is a serious problem; it surprises me that it is as low as it is, and that cornered-animal backlashes like Columbine are not monthly events. One thing I do know: until students are treated like real people, with similar responsibilities *and rights*, this problem is only going to get worse.
This response has been erased.
School bullying is a serious issue. I was harassed for a long time in school. It didn't stop till I pulled a gun on someone. I didn't use it, but if that kid had taken another step towards me, I would have. No, I wasn't a gang member or a drug dealer. Just someone who finally got fed up. You want real life, you got it. The poster who said that people in authority don't care about what is fair is totally correct. They don't. You have to look after yourself, even if it means using deadly force.
uh. no. Deadly force would be a really dumb option since it probably would result in someone being sent to prison for the rest of their life. And if you think the bullys in HIGHSCHOOL are bad, imagine what it is like in prison. eep. Besides, it is wrong to kill someone even if one has been bullied by them.
r92: what she said. /laughs and shove you into gym locker
This response has been erased.
you forgot to call him a dork.
This response has been erased.
True, bullying is a serious issue in schools, but having a separate school for every category of students is not the answer. Where is it going to end? A separate school for the fatties, a separate school for geeks, a separate school for freaks, a separate school for jocks? Solve bullying at the core, don't create hide-outs for it
What difference does it make. It isnt *really* a seperate school for gay kids since they allow anyone in. It is, however, a school where sexuality will be openly discussed. I dont thinkthat is really possible in main stream schools since so many parents, teachers and fellow students probably are resistant to the idea. When I was growing up, their was a special school in Detroit for immigrant kids. They did this so they could have all the 'English as a Second Language' classes in one building. And also so these kids wouldnt feel all alone. Of course they allowed any kid in who wanted in so it wasnt exactly a special school for foreigners. I think that as long as the school district allows anyone in the district into these special schools, there is no problem with them. I think it makes school districts better when they have lots of choices for people. More choices is better than fewer choices. This school in NYC is just another option for folks. If you dont like it, dont send your kids there.
The impression I got was this was a school for gays, and they were contemplating how they would limit admission to it. May have changed since then, I haven't been keeping close tabs. If what you say is true in para 1, sure that's a great idea. But touting it as a "gay school" isn't the right way to do it
they should make all the schools gay.
"Gaywads, Dorkwads Sign Historic Wad Accord"
This response has been erased.
Homer: The entire steel mill was gay! Moe: Where you been, Homer? Whole steel industry is gay.
Sure start a school just for geeks, then you will have the geeks competing with each other to become Big Man on Campus anyway, as they separate the most attrative, socialily capable, knowledgeable, etc from the geekiest of the geeks. If you don't think it would happen, visit any Science Fiction ConVention.
Hey, I've got a neat idea - instead of starting a school for the population which suffers from bullying, start a special school for the bullies. Imagine, a high school which openly emphasizes sports. Plus they could have special areas of study for these future jocks, like gas station management and such.
in other words you'd like special schools for *most* americans.
This response has been erased.
You missed my point. The fact is that school administrators in general don't give a damn. The guys who used to harass me were reported multiple times and ignored multiple times. All it did was got them talked to once or twice and made them madder so I had to defend myself. If they had pushed me farther, yes, I'd have went to prison, but I was not in a position to defend myself against five larger guys every day. I think sedning kids to "special schools" so they can get away from bullying is fooish, but equally foolish and clueless are those who think that it is not a serious issue. That's kind of like saying sexual harassment in the workplace is just something ladies should be expected to put up with.
Ok, so the administration talked to the kids? What else were they supposed to do? Spank them? There arent easy answers, unfortunately. I dont think anyone should have to put up with bullying but I have to wonder how much can really be done, especially when most high school bullying is verbal and therefore not especially noticed by administration. Maybe the victims could be encouraged to learn how to make friends since bullies usually pick on the loners.
The administration I would hope would have done the same thing as an employer would do if someone reported criminal behaviour in the workplace. The point is, if the administration doesn't stop it, the kids might have to do it on their own. I found a way to stop the bullying on my own. It was a dangerous route to take, but at that point, I could think of nothing else to do. And trust me, the administration won't stop it. Unless you have lots of money, anyway.
Re #106: > Imagine, a high school which openly emphasizes sports. That would be every existing high school in the country. Re #110: It's not noticed because no one pays attention. There's an attitude that "boys will be boys" and bullying is to be expected. You even see that here, with people saying that it prepares kids for "the real world." If an adult beats up another adult out on the street, they're likely to get arrested. If a school kid beats another school kid, they *might* get a brief talking to, and possibly a day of after-school detention, depending on how important they are to the football team.
Exactly. If the same exact thing happened to an adult, it would be a crime. But if it happens to a kid it is all "playing" and not to be taken seriously. It certainly does teach you about the real world. So does getting a gun stuck in your face. Is that what you are suggesting our schools should be like?
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
Its not always fighting, but the threat of violence. It rarely gets to the point of fighting . . . how can one guy fight a whole gang of other people? And most of the time at my Junior High, a blind eye was turned to almost anything.
I just mentioned it because it was something that I did to defend myself. I don't like guns, and I certainly wouldn't have thought of using one had I any other option. But you have to defend yourself. No one else will.
you do know that pulling a gun on these other kids is way worse than anything they were doing to you, right? Verbal threats are wrong, it's true but what do you expect the school administrators to do when you go tell them that you have been verbally threatened? I would expect them to talk to the boys, which they *did*.
If you have been harassed and threatened with violence, and occasionally hit or abused by people for an extended period of time, you wouldn't think that it was so reasonable. Suppose there were a group of people where you worked who were continually harassing you, and you knew that they were totally free to continue in any way that they chose. You reported them and they were told to stop and then the aggression increased. At what point do you say "enough is enough"? Like the poster above said, if you stick up for yourself you are in trouble, if you don't then just learn to enjoy the abuse I guess. Why not "talk" to rapists and tell them not to do any such naughty things again? It doesn't work.
I never pulled a gun on someone, but I sure fantasized about it a lot. I would have been sorely tempted if I'd actually had access to a handgun.
Yeah, I phantasised about if a good bit as well. I actually started carrying the thing about a week before the incident. I guess it made me feel a bit safer than before, since it would sort of equalise the force if it came necessary to use it. But I didn't think I had the balls to actually do it. Then when this guy and some of his buddies came and pushed me down and started harassing me again, I didn't think, I just reached in my bag and pointed it. It was a dumb thing to do and obviously wrong, but when you're 14 and nobody listens to you when you tell them you are being attacked, harassed and intimidated daily, your options are limited. BTW, the leader of this little "gang" that made a habit of kicking my butt in junior high is now in prison for first degree murder himself. Don't tell me that these guys weren't serious when they threatened people . . . they were.
That's a scary situation to be in. What did your parents do about it, btw? I hope that you tried to get them to help you complain to the school authorities. (I know that I didn't hear everything that went down, but when I did hear about teasing and bullying, I talked to the teachers and worked with them on ways to help my kids cope/make the others stop. Was not always successful, but at least I think both my kids knew they had options.) When I was in school, in the stone age, when they allowed physical punishments of students (I know, it's not supposed to help, but...) bullies could be and were paddled by the principal in front of the whole school. I recall with some satisfaction the day one of the jocks was in fact paddled and humiliated for bullying a geeky boy. While it may not have been politically correct or whatever, man, it did stop him from being a BMOC for quite a while.
Well, I told my parents, but they weren't of much help. Mom called the principal's office a few times, but they never did much. Unless they catch someone in the act of doing something, they aren't likely to make much of a deal about it. And if you complain about things on a regular basis, some people are likely to label you as a crybaby. Dad was under the bizarre impression that I could defend myself physically against anyone. In addition, i think a few of the teachers were afeard of these guys as well, and they certainly weren;t going to get in the way.
This response has been erased.
Re 112: Yes, I was joking.
If he would have came after me I would have shot him. And I do think there is a difference between attacking innocent people and defending yourself. I DID pursue it through the "right" channels. And the "right" channels ignored me. So when you ask for assistance from the "proper authorities" and they ignore you, what then? Just sit back and enjoy it like they tell the rape victims, I guess. Then again, when it is someone else who is under attack and not you, it is a lot easier to say that.
so how is your therapy going now? not carrying anti-bully guns these days, i hope? how old are you?
This response has been erased.
And if I had went to the police they would have asked for proof. Nobody was going to admit that this guy was doing what he did because they were afraid of them as well. I went to the principal, and my teachers a numbr of times. What did you expect me to do? Ask a member of his gang to accompany to the police station to admit what was going on? And believe me, if I could have defended myself with my fists I would have. trying to do that against five guys twice your size however is not an option. And I wasnt going to shoot if he left me alone. The truth is, whether you like it or not, that most adults ignore you when you tell them stuff. They think everything that happens in the school yard is cute little kids' stuff. Well, it isn't. And if they won't help you, you either continue to accept the abuse or put a stop to it. I did the latter.
This response has been erased.
If novomit tried to get help, and couldn't, and couldn't come up with another way to deal with his situation, what was he supposed to do? Just suck it up? For me it was 8th grade, too. I took a pen knife (hidden in a fake looking wooden cigar) to school. I showed one of the kids who wouldn't leave me alone that I had a knife. Later that day I was called to the principal's office. He heard my story, and I was sent home for the day. I was never again bothered by another kid in school. The solution worked for me; it was the first effective thing I'd ever done to end the harrassment that followed me through school up to that point. I don't think I should have taken a knife to school, and I don't think novomit should have taken a gun. But then, I don't think either of us should have been pushed to the point where we thought we needed a weapon to just be left alone. I think school administrators, teachers and parents need to step in to help kids like novomit and me to deal with these types of problems. I don't think novomit was responsible for someone who used to beat him up, winding up in jail. Todd, are you nuts?
Yes, I DO see something is wrong with pulling a deadly weapon. However, I still am not hearing anything from you except impractical suggestions for what I could have done to avoid it other than submit myself to abuse over and over again. And no, I never told anyone it was a good idea to carry a gun to school. the exact opposite is the case. Nonetheless, if you sense you are in danger, you do something to avoid it. If a woman who carries a gun with her for protection pulls a gun on a man who tries to rape her, who is most wrong? The woman or the rapist? While an attack is occuring, filing a complain is not an option. If someone broke into your house and began threatening you, would you take steps to defend yourself, or tell the robber to hold on while you call the cops? Got news for you . . . while you are busy calling the cops, he will be busy kicking your arse. No, I didn't go to the cops. I doubt if there are mahy other 14-year olds who would have done so either. And what gives you the notion that they would have thought any different about it than anyone else. They would have came, asked a few questions, wrote it off as a playground dispute, left, and i would have got it even worse next time. You have a great way of taking the victim and making them out to be the agressor. THEY started it, not me. if they would have left me alone, there would have been no need for any of this. but then again, I must have asked for it. Minding your own business has a way of attracting trouble.
I agree jep. Taking a knife or a gun to school is stupid. But when you dont see where you have another option, you do what you have to do. And then things can *really* get out of hand. i was lucky. So were you. But since the schools were not made safe enough so that we couldnt get by by *not* doing these things, I, at that age anyway, saw no other alternative.
This response has been erased.
Once a situation becomes intolerable, it doesn't matter if it gets worse. The only thing that mattered to novomit, or me, or anyone else in that situation, is that the situation has to change. Novomit's gun did indeed change him from "hunted" to "hunter". So what? He was the victim. Do you think he was obligated to remain a victim, or that I was? Let me tell you something, it is *bad* to be victimized, over and over and on and on. It's bad if you're in an abusive marriage, it's bad if you're a child being sexually abused by an adult, and it's bad if you're a kid being harrassed by other kids. If you think it's bad to take action on your own behalf in any of these situations, then it seems to me, as I believe it does to novomit, that you prefer the harrasser to the one being harrassed.
This response has been erased.
Being bullied does not justify bringing a gun to school, much less pulling it out and threatening someone with it. There is also a big difference between the mostly verbal taunts novomit has described and a rape. Frankly, there often isnt too much difference between a bully and a victim except who happens to be in power at the moment. A gun turns the victim into the bully real fast. I totally get the helpless feelings one gets when one is a victim. And I know it is especially hard when one has limited social skills and thus has to endure the humiliation alone. I was bullied while in school but soon learned that the best way to deal with it was to make friends. In some cases, I even made friends with a former bully. A gang of five boys will think twice before actually physically attacking another kid who is hanging around 4-5 of his friends. They go for the loners because they are easy and there isnt so much risk.
This response has been erased.
I'm going to listen to my son if he tells me of problems. I'm going to to school with him and make sure the problems are dealt with, if there are any. I'm going to make sure he knows, and the school knows, it's not just him complaining, that it's me, too, and that it is not acceptable for my child to be harrassed in school. There is no way I would ever tolerate my son being afraid of going outside during recess because he's being beaten up on the playground. I went through that when I was his age. Thankfully, things are different now than they were then. Playground supervisors and teachers don't just ignore this type of situation, and parents pay attention to kids more now than they did when I was a child. It wasn't verbal harrassment which caused me to take a knife to school, it was being hit (some days) and being convinced I was going to be hit (other days). Yes, I would tell my son to do something else, rather than putting up with that, if there were no other alternative available to him. But I regard it as my duty to make sure there are other ways to deal with that sort of situation before it gets to that point. I wish someone had stepped up that way for me. I bet novomit would rather have had an alternative, too.
Here is the problem from the kid's point of view. Unless they are constantly monitored by adults, the bully can get them alone. And going to adults for help is often seen as a HUGE sign of weakness. Going to adults is likely to make the problem worse. However, going to friends is the opposite. It is a sign of strength. It isnt an accident that the kids who get picked on and the kids who are the bullies are the ones with the least social skills. Of course, it is important for the adults in a situation to pay attention to things. But there is a lot they will miss. And even if they are able to keep things from getting physical, they dont really address the root of the problem. Frankly, the verbal taunting is almost as bad and impossible to control. Parents, school administrators, etc, might be able to make kids not be violent but they cant make them be nice.
This response has been erased.
Parents and other adults can certainly make kids behave politely and act as if they're nice. Taking weapons to school isn't generally seen as a sign of strength, either. It's a sign of being desperate. In my case, it turned out to be a way of crying out for help.
This response has been erased.
What's your alternative, if they're getting beaten up on a regular basis and the teachers won't do anything? You know the cops won't, and while they could have studied martial arts or something, that wouldn't help much against five guys. Should they have sucked it up?
This response has been erased.
We aren't talking about me here. I went to a private school, where the teachers and staff didn't let that kind of shit happen. (I also went to the dojo three nights a week, which gave me the right attitude to avoid that kind of crap.) Cops tend to ignore school roughness even now, and certainly would have blown jep off when he was in high school. They had no interest in high school kids punching each other out if it didn't do permanent damage. They might now, but it wouldn't have been an option then. I'm not saying bringing a weapon to school is right, I'm just asking what you think they could have done instead that would actually have helped.
I *said* I shouldn't have taken a knife to school. I got lucky, got some help (or impressed some bad kids -- I don't really know), and what I did actually helped me, without causing me any damage. Todd, it's clear as can be that you've never been in similar circumstances, and don't have the slightest clue what it's like. For me, getting bullied was something I dealt with most school days from 2nd to 8th grade, and got no help from *anyone*. If you think I was wrong for finding a way to deal with that, and succeeding in a way that got no one else hurt, then I can't imagine what your thinking must be based on. If you think I should have just endured it, and that novomit should have too, then it can only be that you lived in a different world than I did. I'm sure it'd have been better to stand in and get the stuffing beat out of me in 3rd grade, like in a Tom Sawyer book or something, and "earned the respect of my peers", but not every kid is the kind who can do that. I wasn't. Some people aren't tough. Maybe there ought to be a place in the world for those people anyway.
This response has been erased.
Re: various "go tell the cops and they'll make it all better" responses When i was about a high school sophomore, my folks read my younger brother & me the riot act about *any* interaction with with the cops in the next town. Seemed that the men in blue were a bit out of control over there, and quite willing to drag a teenage boy they didn't like downtown and beat him half to death. After several further "bad P.R. incidents" with not a hint of self-doubt (let alone remorse) from the blue gang, the political pressure got bad enough for something to be done. But about 20 years later i heard a talk by the then-current police chief of that town, and he was politely bragging about the rough-&-ready way that his force dealt with young suspects and offenders.
When an angry student brings a gun to school he puts lots of innocent students at risk. That's wrong. I don't care how victimized you feel. If you can't rally enough intelligence to find a better way out then you've got bigger problems than the bullies.
_no shit!_ lol
Has anybody considered the message that the schools and police are sending *to the bullies* by refusing to intervene? No? Let me offer a model, then. When bullying and harassment are not checked in the bud, they become ingrained patterns of behavior. What's right becomes whatever they can get away with, and that encompasses a lot. When nobody treats the bullies as if they're doing anything wrong, they come to rely on bullying to get their way. They are on a track to become habitual predators. What's the result of this in adult life? Spousal abuse, for one thing. I'll bet dollars to donuts that the murderer of goose's acquaintance grew up as a bully, just like novomit's nemesis. What would have happened if that proto-murderer had been faced down a few more times by a victim with a weapon? Might have convinced him that it was too risky, and shifted him off that track. Some innocent might be alive today if other long-ago innocents had used force to underscore a demand TO BE LEFT ALONE, and the sum total of human misery might have been reduced. And that's why I find the criticisms aimed at jep and novomit to be hollow and hypocritical. The most basic right *is* the right to be left alone, and that is the moral distinction between the bully and their victim. The victim does not go out looking for a bully, and the moral right to self-defense does not have exemptions for age, institutions or introversion. The crime in both incidents was that the institution failed to act when it would have made a difference. In at least one case (just among the people in this discussion) that failure probably cost an innocent's life; that's not including the tragic loss of human potential due to dropouts, depression and even suicide caused by bullying. If our institutions can't get along without abusing (directly or indirectly) their charges, they ought to be on trial for the results; we shouldn't be accusing the victims and excusing the perpetrators.
Re #150: I'm not saying it's right. I'm asking Todd what he sees as the
alternative.
Forget it guys, you know its better to suck it up than to defend yourself. Some us weren't brought up in a glass bubble and don't have the option of having someone come to our aid everytime we snap our fingers, but that's a small excuse. Gangsters like us just never learn, do we?
This response has been erased.
The cops weren't in school during my childhood. Teachers and playground supervisors were in charge, and it was their job to deal with interactions between children. These days, they actually do so, which I think is a good thing. It never occurred to me, at age 13, to go to the police to report in- school harrassment. You're saying I should have known I should do that, and not taken the knife to school. Once again, I agree taking a knife was a bad idea. I knew it was wrong at the time. Anyway, I also knew at the time that going to the police would not be an effective way to deal with being bullied. *The authority figures who were there every day didn't act.* Why would the police? Do you know what the police would have done? They'd have laughed it off. If they didn't, they would have talked to teachers and administrators, and *then* laughed it off *and* I'd be the kid who went to the police.
It's almost 30 years since I took that knife to school, and the events of the time, and leading up to that time, are as real to me now as they were when they happened.
This response has been erased.
Tod you're still living in dreamland. The cops wouldn't have done a thing. They would have laughed it off like everyone else. if the instructors and principals didn't listen why would the cops? And at any rate, going to the cops is usually not the first thing that a kid thinks of. Filing a police report occured to me in the same way that flying to Mars would have occured to me. If they had been brought in, there would have needed to be witnesses for any charges to be filed, and no one was going to risk getting on the bad side of these guys. If there were bruises, i would have had to prove that they were the ones who had done it. It would have been a great exercise in getting those guys more pissed off at me.
(I don't remember the police ever being called in to any of my schools, but had they been called in, 'twould have been done by the teachers or principals, NOT the students. Note that both people have said they mentioned the problem to their parents, who ALSO did not think of calling the cops.)
Why wouldn't one go to a lawyer. Would not that get the attention of the school board??
Typical conservative elitism from klg. Why not just hire a bodyguard if your kids can afford lawyers?
Re #124: > Ever think that maybe by pulling a gun on this thug, you gave him the > idea that a gun will get him anything he wants? I'd say he'd already figured out he can get anything he wants just by threatening people. This isn't doing the kid any favors, since it won't work so well in the "real world" unless he's either unusually strong, or unusually rich. Re #131: > If novomit tried to get help, and couldn't, and couldn't come up with > another way to deal with his situation, what was he supposed to do? > Just suck it up? I hear suicide is a popular option these days. :P Re #134: The cops don't exactly take schoolyard bullying seriously. There's that "boys will be boys" attitude at work. Besides, it's almost always one person's word against another. Often bullies are athletes, the sons of rich people, or other generally well-respected kids who know who to act nice around. In a small town like the one I grew up in, this amounts to a "get out of jail free" card.
Well, I have to say... one of the kids who used to beat me up would chase me down every recess, and tell me "I'm going to teach you a lesson," or "You're only getting what you deserve", or the like. It seems a reasonably good guess that he got those phrases from home, and was just passing on what he was being taught. He was definitely not from a wealthy family. Another kid who used to beat me up on the playground in elementary school, later saved my life. I don't think anyone else in the world is aware of this any more, but he did; I was drowning and he pulled me out of the pool. (It was an outdoor gravel-pit type pool.) Several years later, as a teenager, I ran across him again, he was a runaway and was running with a cousin of mine. I brought them to my house, my parents gave them food and called my cousin's parents, and I believe they ran off again. I never saw the former bully again. I should ask my cousin -- who's been in and out of Jackson Prison -- if he knows whatever became of the other guy. I have somewhat mixed feelings about him, but overall I hope he overcame the odds and turned his life around. I don't think that kid was from a wealthy family, either. The kid who caused me to take a knife to school is also known to me to be from a family with not much money. The first kid later became a friend of mine; a somewhat uneasy friend, but someone I could get along with. My relationship changed dramatically with the second kid as well, as I related. I don't recall ever talking with the third kid again. I avoided him, and perhaps he avoided me as well. So there you go. None of those three became outstanding athletes. None had much money. I'd be inclined to believe all of them were abused at home and striking out at anyone else they could. I don't have any grudges against any of them. Me, I was an easy target because I had a pattern of being an easy target. I'd like to see anyone in a pattern like that, get help to get out of it.
This response has been erased.
we could have a potluck/bakesale fundraiser and rename the school: "Dylan and Erik Elementary"
Actually, the only really effective way to deal with a bully from my personal experience is to ignore them. Of course, one cant ignore them unless one is in a situation that will cause the bully to leave them alone. Sure a gun or knife might work for this but it is dangerous. The really best way is to make a lot of friends. That is what novomit and jep should have done. Gone out of their way to make friends. Friends are a hell of lot safer than a gun or a knife (and more fun at parties too)
The examples above show another danger of non-intervention: what if the bully's behavior is a symptom of another problem, such as abuse at home? They don't deserve to go through that any more than the victims at school.
But there are problems with your solution, too, slynne. There are those of us who just don't make friends easily. I sure don't, and didn't. I was lucky in that I was a girl, and while I went to over nine different schools in my elementary/high school experience (three in my third grade year, alone), most bullies don't usually pick on girls, physically, and I would just retreat into my books if it got verbal and ignore them.
I know that there are some kids who dont make friends easily. It is a lot easier for adults to spot *that* situation than it is for them to see the bullying. It wouldnt hurt for parents to spend time teaching their kids social skills. Sure, a lot of kids just naturally pick those up but they are skills and they can be taught.
If you had my parents, you'd know that was a lost cause (them noticing me having troubles and teaching me social skills). I think that it's a good idea for parents now to try to do so, but some parents are not going to be able to do it for their kids.
I agree with Russ. I feel very sorry for the first two bullies I mentioned. I'm pretty sure I've had a better life than they have had, and am absolutely certain I had better opportunities coming into my adult years than they had. I had a lot of unnecessary misery in my childhood, but so must have they. I wish none of us had had such bad experiences.
This response has been erased.
Nope. I feel sorry for anyone who's getting beat up by his parents.
This response has been erased.
resp:171 - Oh I know that there are terrible parents in the world. And it sucks for their kids. But, life is unfair and some kids will not get the same parental support as others. Can teachers and schools be expected to compensate for this? I dont think it is even possible. Personally, I think that the *worst* parents in all of this discussion were novomit's parents. How the hell did he get a gun to take to school in the first place?
This response has been erased.
Lots of teenagers use guns and are just fine. Post-Columbine, it might be a little harder to see that lots of guns are used for sports purposes, even by young people. Teenagers who grow up hunting probably have the ability to get ahold of a gun if they want to, but they have access to other dangerous weapons as well. Cars, knives... any kid who spends an hour or more per day alone in the house has the ability to make explosives, which means he can make bombs and grenades. It's frightening that novomit took a gun to school, that he *managed* to take it to school, and was even able to carry it around so he had it when he wanted to threaten someone. It's also frightening that he felt like he had to do all that to defend himself from being attacked. There's responsibility there for his parents, certainly, but also some for the school.
How much can a school reasonably be expected to do though? He said that when he told the administration, they talked to the bullies. That seems like the only really appropriate action they could take. I assume that the administration wasnt aware of what was going on before that. Which isnt all that surprising when you consider that most things happen out of sight of adults.
You also have to realize that there are different types of bullying. Girls get bullied different than boys. Even when boys bully, they use different methods. The smallest guy in my high school class used to harrass me every day. He probably weighed 125 wrining wet, and I weighed nearly twice that. But he always had the sharp tongue and liked to make fun of me. He was a royal ass. Now, I may not have been bullied as bad as some of the others here because of my size, and because I participated in sports, but I was never one of the in people, and several guys did indeed try to bully me. Mostly because they knew I would not strike back. I did use my size to protect younger kids on the bus from other bullies, and perhaps the bullies thought I was a bully because I was in high school and they were in grade school. The one bully in high school did get spanked after he threatened a teacher. The principal put a chair in front of the study hall and spanked him right there. He stopped bullying people after that, at least in the open. But no one ever thought of taking a gun to school, even those of us that had access to them. I wonder if the years I spent in school should be considered the transition years because prior to that no one thought twice about spanking kids in school and after my school years it became very uncommon. I am not sure it is better for it.
This seems to fit in: There are the "Pink Pistols", homosexuals who think it's a good idea for them to have guns. They either did or are setting up a "chapter" in Michigan. Somebody of the triangle foundation said this is a bad idea, homosexuals should be at the forefront of gun control.
I am not sure why anyone would think sexual orientation should have anything to do with one's opinions on gun control. I mean, they are totally seperate issues.
Haven't some gays been shot just because they are gay? That would make the two issues somewhat less than totally separate.
Like gays are the only ones that are ever shot? Your logic seems flawed
No, your's is. Others being shot also establishes a connection between them and the issue of gun control.
This response has been erased.
re180: so you advocate a return to the humiliation of corporal punishment in our public schools? like maybe when a kid misbehaves the admin. could take him/her to the local laundry-mat and *shake* them. perhaps they could hire YOU to do that, heck...maybe they'd hire a second lookout to keep an eye peeled for pesky social workers, eh? moron.
This response has been erased.
There is a difference between punishment adn assault in my mind. Spanking a child on his rump will make an impression and get him motivated to change his behavior. Stomping on toes, or slapping them, shaking them, or making them eat wierd concotions fall under abuse. But you posterior is designed to take a few well placed whacks without injury to anything other than your ego. No whips, no chains, and no kicks to the groin. This isn't torture, nor is it rocket science. It is punishment designed to change an attitude. same goes with standing in a corner or making you wear a dunce cap. It causes the individual humiliation, adn gives them incentive to change their behavior. Time outs, trips to the councillor, and reason have only minimal effect on a mind that hasn't learned to reason yet.
Personally, I see that as the heart of the problem: the assumption that school-aged children are not capable of reasoning. Quite the opposite is true: these kids learn very quickly that ineffectual "punishments" like time outs or verbal reprimands are completely meaningless and can be safely ignored.
Fortunately most kids don't have much independent income, or a driver's license. While just bitching at them might not work, being grounded, not getting to go to the amusement park, etc. can be a big deal.
Well, imho, it's like this -- we just got a kitten. That kitten wants to do what it wants to do, including some dangerous things. Now, I could give it a time out, but what's that mean to a kitten? No, I have to use physically taking it away from wires, or spritzing it with water, or spraying the wires with bitter apple spray, or any of a number of other things that will dissuade that kitten from biting on electric wires. It doesn't understand why I don't want it to stop biting the wires, so I can't just tell it "stop, and this is why". This is where I think a young child is -- it's not going to understand why I want it to not walk out in the street, or whatever. That's the time when physical punishments do work -- on some children, in some cases, imho. Once you CAN talk to a child and actually expect it to understand your point of view and that there are REASONS why you have those rules, then physical punishment is less effective. (Though in some cases, it does work -- witness the bully in my middle school who was paddled by the principal. It made most of his previous victims much less afraid of him and a lot more likely to report him, because they saw him in a ridiculous posture AND they knew the principal would do it again, if he had to.) BTW, up there, it's I do NOT want the kitten to bite electrical wires! I DO want it to stop.
I dont know. I think that my parent's calm manner of talking about issues including their evil "make up your own punishment" thing was pretty effective and probably was *more* effective than beatings. I used to wish they would beat me because it would be over fast and would be better than the whole sitting in the living room trying to explain why I had done what I had done thing. Of course my parent's method taught me to reason and to think about my actions. There is an important difference between kittens and children. Children *understand* language which is why punishment doesnt have to be physical. You can say to a child, "you must not go into the street and if you do, you will have a time out or you will have a toy taken away or whatever the punishment is. Physical punishment might work but I dont think it works as well as other forms of behavior modification and *certainly* isnt worth the other lessons it teaches (like whomever is biggest and can hit hardest has the most power).
Although, I have to admit that if I had kids, I might think it was funny to squirt them with a squirt gun whenever they did refused to use their litter box or jumped up on the sofa ;)
I'm talking about two and three year olds. They don't understand. Believe me, I've dealt with them enough that I can safely say they don't GET I have to do x because it's safer. I did this whole conversation on Saturday with Katie, about how Griffin and I couldn't play on the high bars of the playset even if she wanted us to, because I'm too big and Griffin can't balance. She was very unhappy about it, although I explained it to her. While this was non-problematic, she still didn't understand why it wasn't safe, really.
Yeah, but when you smacked her she understood?
If a child is old enough to learn right and wrong by pain he or she is most certainly old enough to get the same message through language and other non-violent means. I feel real sorry for the two year old in your care, Twila. Kids get hit because the hitting adults are out of ideas and smacking is much easier than figuring out better parenting skills. Too, if hitting is so effective why does it have to be repeated, often, and only stops when the child is big enough to hit back?
This response has been erased.
You do not beat children. you do not hit children. you may spank children. there is a difference.
This response has been erased.
I think spanking may have its place before children are old enough to be talked to reasonably. On the other hand, as I recall, what spanking taught me as a kid is "getting caught hurts." It wasn't until my parents started explaining to me why what I did was bad that I started to feel guilty about doing stuff that was wrong, which is a much better motivation against doing things than fear of getting caught. Cats have no sense of guilt, so the best you can hope for is to teach them that getting caught doing something bad is painful. ;>
Um. Sheesh, no, I didn't/wouldn't spank Katie. I was just digressing by saying it was interesting that while I *can* communicate with her and actually reason with her, in most cases, she wasn't understanding that I had reasons to be more interested in protecting Griffin than in playing her game -- and it's perfectly okay with me that she acts three. She is three.
I think that what I am trying to say, for those of you who are missing my point, is that at some times, and with some kids, spanking can be a tool in discipline. I am not going to say it's effective with every kid, and I'm certainly not going to say that it's what I'd do except in certain very defined circumstances and my definition of spanking is a swat with my hand on a child's butt -- not hard. Not enough to bruise, nor do anything except get his or her attention. Kind of the equivalent of the squirting with water. But it would only be with MY kid, for goodness's sake, and I'm not in the kid-raising business anymore. As I have said before, I know the difference between being beaten (which I WAS, as a child) and a spank. There's a world of difference between abuse and discipline. I'm not advocating abuse. Ever.
*sigh* Sometimes Julie has to give our 15 mo. old a swat on the behind-- because the talkin' doesn't work. If she'll listen to you, more power to ya. I don't know, I'm not really for it. More often than not, however, we *do* talk to her, and explain that what she did disappoints us. Hopefully, that will be a trend that will hold fast.
This response has been erased.
Spoken by somebody who never had teenagers.
This response has been erased.
Just curious, klg, would you see hitting your teenager as an appropriate form of punishment?
Todd sometimes manages to thoroughly surprise me. :)
This response has been erased.
The only lesson I can think of where a smack might do some good is if you have a kid who is hitting others. Then *maybe* a smack on the hand to show them it hurts might be in order but only if telling them that it hurts doesnt work. FWIW, none of my friends who have kids have had any trouble telling their kids that it hurts others. The kids always understand that. I think verbal corrections are just as effective as physical ones. Sure, young kids dont always understand the reasons not to do something but if you simply tell them "that is not ok" and then redirect them to do something else e.g "Do this instead, it *is* ok" they usually respond very well.
My parents never spanked me as a teenager. By the time I was that age, they felt that revoking privilages was a better punishment for me.
Re #181: I read an article yesterday about the Pink Pistols, and their existance makes a bit more sense to me now. Apparently, it's not that they feel there's any particular connection between homosexuality and guns; it's that they wanted to create a club for gun enthusiasts who, because of their sexual orientation, wouldn't be welcome in the conservative-leaning NRA.
This response has been erased.
Re #214: Apparently quite a bit, from what I've heard from conservative politicians. It's an important issue to the religious right, which is sort of the rudder that steers the Republican party.
I think the only people who think the religious right exists are those who are afraid of it.
You may think it - but it is extremely clear that a virulent religious right exists. They were out in force in MS over that religious monument. Some others kill doctors that perform abortions.
Alabama, not Mississippi.
re216: nice, you pull that quote out of an old reader's digest, stinky?
Right - AL.
Interesting note: The AL atty gen who is carrying out AL Sup Ct order to move the monument is the same Bill Pryor whose nomination to a federal judgeship is being blocked by liberal Democrats who allege he is unqualified because he wouldn't enforce existing federal law.
Which federal laws has he refused to enforce? I thought the liberal opposition to his appointment is primarly because of his anti-abortion stance.
(Why would a state atty gen have been asked to enforce federal law?)
State attorney generals cooperate with federal agencies in enforcement of federal laws. See, for example, http://www.grandrapids.bbb.org/AlertDetl.asp?ID=24
(First of all, being anti-abortion automatically makes him a religious zealot who ought to be demonstrating in the rotunda of the AL Sup Ct bldg to keep the 10 Commands. monument there, right?? Second, tell us, what's the necessary connection between being anti- abortion and not enforcing federal abortion laws?)
Re #225: There's a difference between being an AG charged with enforcing the law under penalty of contempt, and being a life-tenured judge able to make his rulings comport with his prejudices with no penalty at all.
(Or, in plain English, "There isn't any.)
If your reading ability is that poor, Kerry, you just go on thinking that. .
Something relevent to the earlier conversation about bullying: http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/09/04/sprj.sch.bullying.prevention.ap/ind ex.ht ml "Bullying shouldn't be dismissed as a harmless schoolyard rite of passage, according to a report that found bullies and their victims often develop behavioral and emotional problems later in life." It's really sort of sad that a study had to be done for people to figure that one out.
This response has been erased.
Make him, tough guy.. :-p
This response has been erased.
I found that same piece on the Houston Chronicle: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2083004 Some excerpts: Nearly 60 percent of boys who researchers classified as bullies in grades six though nine were convicted of at least one crime by the age of 24; 40 percent of them had three or more convictions by 24, the report said. "We can't afford to squander the early warning that bullying gives that a kid may be headed for trouble," said Sanford Newman, president of Fight Crime. Those who are bullied are five times more likely to be depressed and far more likely to be suicidal, said the report, citing U.S. and European studies. Bullying prevention programs are relatively inexpensive, the report said. For example, it costs about $4,000 to train someone to administer an anti-bullying program in a large school district, but $100,000 to put a child with emotional problems in special education for 12 years. A 1998 study by Vanderbilt University estimated that each high-risk juvenile prevented from adopting a life of crime could save the country between $1.7 and $2.3 million.
> "We can't afford to squander the early warning that bullying gives > that a kid may be headed for trouble," said Sanford Newman, president > of Fight Crime. What does he propose to do about it, I wonder? Just because bullying is a predictor of likely future criminal behavior it doesn't mean that correcting the bullying will have any effect on the likelihood of future criminality. And even if bullying was a 100% successful predictor and we *knew* bullies were going to grow up to become criminals our system has no mechanism (nor should it) to allow us to punish crimes that haven't been committed yet..
This response has been erased.
make bullying a crime. get them young.
shake them in a laundrymat!
This response has been erased.
play "Hide From The Social Worker"
What was that Tom Cruise movie about "guilty of the future murder of..."
minority report?
You have several choices: