What are Bully Apologetics?
Apologetics are systematic arguments that
are traditionally used to support a dogmatic mind set. There are people who
hold set views about bullying, they do not want things to change. They may
have differing motives for clinging to these beliefs. They may fear an upset
in the power balance in the community. They have been raised with certain
beliefs they just don't want to challenge. They may fear that change will be
expensive or require greater responsibility for teachers and administrators.
These are the arguments they usually come up with, and some ideas for
responding to them:
"This is just kids being kids"
If you took the same behavior between
adults, much of what we call bullying would be called abusive at best,
criminal at worst. What are we teaching children if there are no
consequences for abuse? Bullies do grow up into bigger bullies. They are
often surprised to find that the behavior that was tolerated in childhood is
no longer cute or funny when they reach majority. Is this fair to them?
(see sidebar comments).
It may be true that children jockey for
power just as adults do - it is our responsibility to teach them how to show
leadership in positive ways.
"It is not the school's responsibility
to teach social interactions"
This one is too funny, because the same
people who use it will often lament about the socialization a child will get
if they are removed from a dysfunctional school to be home schooled. Of
course schools teach certain social values, skills and ideas, knowingly or
through the school's internal politics. My argument is that these
interactions should not be left to chance. We have an opportunity to work
within our schools towards a love-based model of leadership, rather than the
fear and power model we've been programming into our children. We know that
most of the problems in our culture stem from fear and power imbalances. It
is time our schools became places of hope and inspiration.
"If your child stood up for him/herself,
they wouldn't pick on him/her"
There may be some truth in this assertion,
even though it sounds an awful lot like blaming the victim. Victims do tend
to have certain personality traits that draw the attention of bullies, and
they can be trained to deal with these situations more effectively. I am a
strong proponent of assertiveness training, personal growth and empathy
training to help target children better cope with peer abuse situations. But
this is only addressing a small portion of the problem. Surely we are not
suggesting that the target child is the only one with a social challenge?
Because in the end, if you get your child this training, and they do manage
to divert the bullies, all this will mean is they go searching for another,
perhaps even more vulnerable target.
Bullies need help with socialization much
more than target children do. In the end it is their behavior that is
anti-social at best, dangerous at worst. Left without counseling, bullies
are more likely to become abusers in adulthood, have higher rates of
encounters with law enforcement and are more likely to end up in jail than
the general student population. Don't we care what happens to them too?
"A little name-calling never hurt
anyone."
That's true. An occasional name-calling
incident is hardly likely to be remembered the next day, never mind make an
impact into adulthood. When we talk about bullying or peer abuse, we are not
talking about occasional moments of poor judgment. We are discussing a
systemic pattern of chronic or persistent abuse where there is a difference
of power between the victim and perpetrator. A simple guideline is "more
than two reports" of name-calling or verbal abuse, and any case of physical
abuse.
"It's too expensive to implement an
anti-bullying program"
Absolute nonsense. As a survivor of chronic
peer abuse, there were two years out of twelve where I was not bullied to
any significant degree. In that school, whenever any sort of abuse was
noticed, the teacher simply said "That sort of thing is not accepted here"
and the abuse stopped. In schools where there is an extended bullying
culture, or there are organized gangs, the problem may be more complex. But
in the average school, all it takes is a simple change of attitude on the
part of the adult authority figures, and the whole atmosphere of the school
can change. That doesn't have to cost a thing.
If you home school your child you will
often hear "But what about their socialization?"
This is so ridiculous, yet so widespread.
On Peer Abuse Know More, there is a list of the social traits of adult
survivors of peer abuse ... what amounts to a litany of the socialization
that target children are getting. If that is the kind of socialization we
want our children to have, there is something terribly wrong with our
culture.
Also, it is simply a myth that school is
the only place children can learn to get along with their peers. There are
volunteer, church, and community groups they can join. There are outside
sports and art classes they can take. It is extremely rare that someone is
so isolated that there is absolutely no outside social opportunity, but even
in those cases, there are often extended family and children in the
neighborhood to challenge a home schooled child. There are ways to foster
social interaction via the Internet. Even if this is not the case, in the
extremely rare cases where the only opportunity for social interaction
involves daily abuse, isolation may be preferable in the end.
