Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery.

These are children and their judgement is not always the best. Do you really want to risk that your child kills another child by accident while following your advice?

Will your child know how far is far enough? Is there a chance he or she might over-react to a situation that is not truly threatening?

"Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, hurt him just enough so that he leaves you alone - but don't kill him."

I hope this is mainly internet posturing and bravado.

I'm not sure every child has the perspective to recognize hyperbole. There are times when violence may be necessary, but that doesn't make it any less horrible, whether justified or not.

One thing I actually disliked about the post is the way he has de-humanised bullies. When in reality the correct approach is to feel sorry for them - because they have all manner of deep seated issues. Not in a lovey-dovey way (which, he is right, is silly) but in an adult comprehending way.

The act of your violence is a potential learning experience for them too. Too much vitriol and anger and they may come away harbouring deep resentment, and later come back at you with escalating violence. But a short sharp shock could teach them some important truths.

For the most part, the really bad bullies I suffered at school are already failures in adult life. With the one exception of another bully who also got beaten up (not by me) late in the school system - he was dramatically changed after that and is currently one of the nicest and most successful adults I know (although there were other factors swinging in his favour).

So sympathy, but not hippy-love. Violence, but not retribution.

It is a tough balance.

It's unfortunate that violence is sometimes necessary in school, but it is because bullying isn't taken seriously by the administration. Bullies spend all their time making trouble, so they get good at doing psychological damage and flying under the radar of authority. But the damage they are doing is potentially severe. Bullies usually have severe problems at home, and I feel bad for them, but they mustn't be allowed to spread their self-loathing virally by means of systematic low-grade abuse to anyone who is an easy target (ie. the weird ones, the free thinkers, the people who don't conform, and thus are more likely to bring something new to the world when they grow up).

If administrators took this more seriously and started expelling these kids, then that would get the attention of their deadbeat parents, and violence would not be necessary. However in reality, school is like prison, and sometimes violence is the answer.

Bullying escalates. If you don't trust your kid to make a judgment at some point, it's basically a matter of time before they get seriously injured themselves.

I'd rather teach my kid to stick up for himself and have the mistakes happen at the level of "knocked out tooth/broken finger" than letting things escalate in the first place.

Bullying does escalate. Therefore, teaching your kid to escalate on their side as well just makes it happen faster. The solution to escalating warfare is to break the cycle.

That is not true. MAD worked in the cold war. The solution is to let the other side know you will not go gentle into that good night.

If your kid just gives the bully a few bruises but ultimately loses the fight then they've sent the message that they're not an easy target, and the bully has saved face.

Bullying is typified by a victim being picked-on mercilessly because he never fights back. Because the bullying tears him down. Because the bullied is a victim.

Bullying isn't a contest for the bully. They do it precisely because it isn't. They're not trying to 'win', they're trying to make someone else feel as bad as they feel. If they can't do that, because the victim refuses to be victimized, they find a new victim or find a new outlet.

The second one no, but the second one is mostly an exaggeration for "don't be the one who starts fights, but be the one who ends them". Cemetery is probably a bad idea as it'll breed revenge, but going at it until they are physically unable to fight back is probably a good idea.

If you don't want the other side to escalate, take it there first and do it fast. If you are truly worried about escalation, then by induction, all fights are fights to the death because beating the bully "just enough" will lead to the bully coming back with more firepower. Lather, rinse, repeat until firearms are involved.

So, you over-compensate. You do everything within your power to kill him and hope someone can stop you or they run away. If you don't take shit from anybody, people will stop trying to give it to you.

Malcolm X, the supremacist dude who had Nazis at his conventions, is a really bad role model for your children.

Edit: why the downvote? He was supremacist, and Nazi connection is well documented: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_supremacy#Alliances_with_...

From the Wikipedia article:

"In 1965, after breaking with the Nation of Islam and denouncing its separatist doctrine, Malcolm X told his followers that the Nation of Islam under Elijah Muhammad had made agreements with the American Nazi Party and the Ku Klux Klan that 'were not in the interest of Negros.'"

Now, notice the "after break-up" part. Have a look at this photo:

http://www.nationalgalleries.org/collection/online_az/4:322/...

She was doing an essay on Malcolm X, these fellas attended one of his conventions. The one in the middle threatened to make a lantern out of her (Arnold is Jewish).

In her later interviews she mentioned that many people get really upset when they see this photo, and exhibition curators often objected to its inclusion.

Um ...

She was doing an essay on Malcolm X, these fellas attended one of his conventions.

While remaining agnostic to your point, it's troubling that you keep citing references that don't support it. The caption on that photo makes no reference to these Nazis being in attendance at a Malcolm X rally.

But I now took an effort to find a reference for you:

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/features...

Grep the text for "Rockwell".

  Rockwell was listening to a speech by Malcolm X – the Nazis and Black Muslims 
  had formed an alliance – and this was the real reason Arnold was there. 

I'm sold on the fight back attitude, but not with that level of danger. And that is the problem with the whole fight back attitude in general. You can teach it, but you must also teach respect for human life and how easy it can be to seriously damage somebody permanently.

No not really. It will perhaps offend the bizarre establishment that has invaded school administration. However, this is bully repulsion 101.

If the system doesn't protect you, you must find a technique that does. Would we avoid school shootings,etc, if we taught our kids to stand up for themselves, don't let yourself get bullied? Real self respect vs the artificial "everyone's special" of today's thinking?

Sidenote: Why is this behavior (bullying) tolerated in school? What other part of our culture accepts bullying as "part of growing up" or "just the way it is?"

Earlier, ragging led to a few suicides, which in turn prompted the passing of the law. It does occur however; I have been ragged myself. Personally though, it didn't affect me as much as I feared it would.

If we accept that "loving the bullies" is a sign of weakness that encourages more bullying, allowing the school to intervene is a sign of extreme weakness that encourages even more bullying whenever kids are out of sight of authority figures.

I agree that children should learn to handle confrontation for themselves, but at the same time when there are chronic offenders there needs to be repercussions. If a bully picks on a kid and they fight back, the bully will move on to the next kid. If he keeps doing it, take him out of the system, expel him from school, or (optimally) find him some way of acting out his aggression, anger, etc. in a more productive manner.

'Fighting back' would soon reduce the school to anarchy outside of the presence of a teacher, but telling kids to deal with it and shrugging it off as 'part of growing up' just encourages the bullies by teaching them that they can do whatever they want, as long as they don't get caught.

At the very least, my shit quit disappearing.

If there was actually unequal punishment then you'll get a lot more "he started it!" kind of arguments, kids will lie to get whatever they want.

And at the same time, I realize looking back on school is that the teachers & admins in public school aren't that bright. As a group they're the poorest-performing college students.

When I'm a father, maybe I would rather have equal & consistent punishment for both parties, rather than some crappy teachers trying to decide who did what.

They're just children. They're not going to pay you. They're not going to vote. Their parents aren't actually the ones getting kicked (WOW would you see a different scenario in that case). It's easier to write it off as "childish" and do nothing. And if you actually sided with a child, there would be loss of status from affiliating with such a low-prestige person.

Same reason society tolerates rape in juvenile prisons. Same reason textbooks and teaching are so uniformly awful. Children have no power, and there's nothing to be gained politically or socially from siding with someone who can't side back.

  > Sidenote: Why is this behavior (bullying)
  > tolerated in school? What other part of our
  > culture accepts bullying as "part of growing
  > up" or "just the way it is?"

My theory is denial. Parents of bullies don't want to admit that their kids are doing wrong, and the parents of victims don't want to face the fact that they need to get involved.

That was my situation, at least -- even with known bullies... when I finally fought back, I got dragged to the principal's office... and I let him have it. Another rarity is that my parents actually backed me on that one.

Only time things ever came to blows, the other guy (who struck first) was 8-10 years older than me, muscular and a good 2-3 feet taller, and that is a fight you do NOT fight.

Fighting as an adult is pretty stupid and a good way to get a felony record.

But like for kids, the other guy can be just too big for you to fight back.

Even captured warrior. In WW1 and WW2 many captured pilots were treated with dignity - one of such stories: http://www.campking.net/WORLDWAR.html

Or the notorious Douglas Bader escape: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Bader#Prisoner_of_War

Not so much in the business world (and especially tech); while you're busy engaging in a dogfight with Joe Competitor, some third company is kicking your trash by spending money on R&D rather than winning a marketing/feature war. So it generally makes sense to avoid direct confrontation, because it slows you down.

I guess that can also apply to bullies in some American schools nowadays. What if the bully wants to prove how badass he is by taking it to a level that involves guns and knives?

Thank goodness I graduated before that kind of stuff started.

Why can't we change the culture of school such that, at least while you're actually _in_ school, you're focused on being the smartest person you can be and not looking over your shoulder?

At least, I think that might have something to do with it.

I suffered 5 years of bullying at school; and tried everything to get it to stop, without success.

Until one day I just got fed up, walked up to the main tormentor in class and, unprovoked, hit him really hard in the mouth (I think I broke his nose, I'm not sure). Was in weeks of trouble (with the staff) :) but once that was out of the way no one touched me again.

I've never outright recommended this approach to anyone; and indeed it's probably not the right thing to do all the time. But some sort of short-sharp-shock can work just as well (so... barging them to the ground etc.) as long as it is sufficiently hard.

From my observation, every adult knows this is the solution. But not all of them has the balls to tell their kid :)

I. flipped. out.

All I remember was walking very calmly towards the quarterback and punching him in the face repeatedly, he tried to hit me but I grabbed his arm and bent him over backwards and just kept punching until he started bleeding from his eyebrow. His friends pulled me off and then threw me down and started to kick me, but it was broken up. Sure I got suspended, but that group never picked on me again.

One of them straight up asked me: "I'm coming at your base with two rockvees and an ambo - you've got a Jarmen, two scorps, and a quad. What do you do?"

In fact, most are just nerds about lifting and football, sometimes more traditional subjects like gaming, comics and math. (Yes, math.)

It's certainly true that our offensive lines were usually at least half national honor society members -- there was always significant overlap with the quiz bowl team -- and we had at least one hard core geek each year. It wasn't at all unusual to find two of us trying out the latest RPG or swapping indie B&W comics.

Nothing changed until I started fighting back in 10th grade. A few fights later, along with a suspension I actually earned this time, and I never had anymore problems.

Come to think of it, shit, he really wasn't tough at all. Going down on the second punch and coming back up dazed? Good thing (for him) I didn't know how to throw a punch...

It's nice being nice, but sometimes it does not work.

If you've already laid the I-wont-stand-to-be-bullied ground work with the "fight back once" thing he'll get your stuff back and none of them will have any fun.

But I also learned another interesting bit of bully psychology: they tease EVERYBODY, especially their friends. So tease them back. I discovered sometimes the supposed bully is just goofing around and this is how they relate to people.

Thirdly I discovered a simpler approach thanks to punk rock ethos: Don't even give a fuck about what other people think of you and let them know you don't give a fuck.

So I'd stick with the hitting. I don't think people understand much else until they mature a little past grade 8-ish mentality.

Folks who do have experience pretty much all agree.

I'd suggest that a large part of why MLK succeeded is because Malcolm X was loudly stating the alternative.

I've never been physically bullied, as I've always been both a dork and an athlete, but I was teased relentlessly early on. My dad's advice was always to ignore, and this just didn't work well enough. That's how I discovered the power of personality - the power to fire back is (sadly) what wins respect of children.

The challenge once you've gained the skill is to reign it in - to be intentional in your response, and to sometimes decide that nonviolence, or silence IS actually the way to go.

http://www.boingboing.net/201011111141.jpg

Also can work well in business. If someone is being a pain, just ignore them and don't give them the publicity they're seeking.

Kids (of a certain age) don't know when to stop. They naturally try to establish a pecking order, and woe to whoever's at the bottom.

Note that I'm not saying you should go punch someone who verbally insults you. I'm specifically talking about responding to violence.

This is after being bullied from the age of 9 to 14, and boy did I hate school. College was a different matter.

For me, it worked fine. (As well as obviously telling teachers and getting them involved if needed).

I absolutely detest parents who tell their kids "If someone hits you, hit them back harder"

Why? Do you believe this makes society more violent?

By the way, I don't agree with the "harder" bit. I.e. I would advocate a more-or-less proportional response in non-life-threating circumstances.

If you hit back, it makes you just as bad, if not worse as the original perpetrator.

"The task of the training battalions is to crush and completely destroy the individual, however strong a character he may have possessed, and to fashion out of that person a type to fit the standards of spetsnaz, a type who will be filled with an explosive charge of hatred and spite and a craving for revenge." Source: http://militera.lib.ru/research/suvorov6/index.html

It's a book by Viktor Suvorov "Spetsnaz. The Story Behind the Soviet SAS". A quick and interesting read.

Violence and degradation is a common method of training soldiers. Some (not me) would say the school system is deliberately set in this fashion.

Things as they actually are is the only way that they are in truth.

So the teaching that it's loving them is what's false -- not that love itself couldn't help. In this case, it was a kind of love of oneself to fight back and protect oneself.

I think where parents get confused is on the individual vs. group distinction. We look at the world, see all the various tribal wars with their counter-attacks and counter-counter-attacks, and erroneously conclude that violence doesn't solve anything.

We're not talking suicide bombs and airstrikes, here. If Alice shoves Billy, and Billy shoves Alice back, there's often no escalation, and no-one else is harmed. The issue is settled, and everyone's still alive and well. This is much better than ongoing bullying.

The problem could be that kids don't interact much with people outside their age group. They have no reference point of how adults behave. It becomes a sort of Lord of the Flies world.

If we really cared about safety, we'd focus less on airport security and "stranger danger", and more on getting people to wear seatbelts and never drive while intoxicated. Statistically, automobile accidents are by far the leading cause of accidental death in the US.

You don't have to be "un-bullyable", you just have to be less bullyable than the next guy.

However, I still believe it's possible to fight back in a non-physical manner. My experience has always been that wit is sharper than fists, so I plan to teach my kids to fight back with language, not punches.

I attended 8 schools between ages 12 and 18 (yes, more than one per year) and was bullied throughout.

And that's why comparing parenting strategies is almost never fruitful -- nearly every decision a parent makes is deeply personal, made with very few data points.

( By the way, if any parents here have NOT read Nurture Shock, buy it right now. Pretty much the only data-driven book on parenting there is. http://www.amazon.com/dp/0446504122 )

My dad gave me this very advice at the time, but I was too cowardly to follow it...

I had a similar experience (and resolution) in middle school and I agree with the author's conclusion. But now I have an 8 month old daughter who may experience this type of bullshit one day, and I'm not sure what advice I'd give her just now.

I don't have kids - but id probably tell her the same. Its more about teaching a lesson and giving encouragement and about standing for one self. She probably wont go gorilla on her peers. Girls tend to do it in more subtle form.

What I think is the most important thing to do is to give training by example - live the way of a warrior and kids will pick it up themselves. Be polite, kind, sincere but closely follow the rules of engagement - when someone sets tries to turn tables on you, be sure to let him know that you know the game too.

Not so that she can beat up the other girls, mind you, but having that sort of discipline, capability, and independence can really provide a good boost to your confidence. You know you're capable, and the taunts of others don't bother you as much.

It's not going to prevent it from bothering her, but it will certainly help her withstand it if it should come to that. If she's not bothered by their initial insults or taunts, they won't enjoy it enough to come back and harass her again.

The asymmetry of this situation is not described much here because the type of bullying attacks used by females are less physical. The mechanics are similar but the techniques are different and can be summarised thus: "Males are paratroopers, females are secret agents". Males rely more on aggression and physicality and are overt while females specailise in covert relational and psychological bullying. If you want to read the mechanics & some citations try here ~ http://seldomlogical.com/2010/06/18/hacking-people

The best article I've read on bulling is "Big Bad Bully" ~ http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200910/big-bad-bully and the best references specifically for dealing with female bullying I've seen is by "Rosalind Wiseman" ~ http://www.amazon.com/Rosalind-Wiseman/e/B001IOH8ZW/ref=sr_n...

No one ever tried to lay a hand on me, so if I'd started anything, it would've been me looking like the 'bad guy'. And somewhere along the way I'd already internalized that as a 'good girl' disappointing authority was the worst thing I could possibly do.

I tried ignoring. I tried preemptively mocking myself to take the wind out of their sails. Nothing really stopped it. I got really lucky that my high school had a surprisingly large 'smart kid' group (6 National Merit scholars in my graduating class of 330) and eventually I was able to keep a large enough peer group to just not have to interact with most of the kids that bullied me.

But despite my small close circle of friends, I still graduated high school feeling like an outcast. Our entire AP history class once deemed me a 'neo-nazi' because I made a comment about the biased language in some video we watched. We had studied rhetoric only a few weeks before in English, and I was wondering why the video seemed to pulling so many of the tricks we'd just learned about in order to make the holocaust look like a bad thing. It seemed unnecessary (in my innocent mind I was thinking, 'Aren't the raw facts enough to convince anyone?').

My one offhand comment (literally just the words, 'That video sure used a lot of biased language.') turned into a full-scale mocking by everyone in the classroom except my two friends (who stayed silent). The teacher never actually joined in the mocking, but he stood by while it happened, encouraged the 'debate' to last longer, and even laughed at some of the hurtful comments made to me by the other students.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1764236

The trick is to emasculate them. Show them you don't care. When they insult you or hurt you, laugh at them. You just have to mean it.

I was bullied for years until I realized one day why they bullied me - I smelled of fear, and I didn't react, I just stood there and looked at them. Suddenly it all made sense, they were like braindead sharks to blood.

So I started smiling and laughing at them.

Took the wind right out of their sails, and they weren't able to force me to come down to their level.

I won.

Play their game and they still win on some level, because hurting another person hurts yourself.

"Hurting someone hurts yourself", bullshit. Revenge is sweet. Defending yourself is not a weakness or immoral, it's rather noble.

If you go with the "laugh at them" technique, they will still go around bullying other kids.

But, stand up and fight them, and they learn a lesson that bullying has some serious consequences. You also set an example to other bullies and other kids being bullied.

Beating up on other people kills you inside, slowly, because it shows you exactly what kind of person you are.

It doesn't matter if you're "standing up" to some other kid. Violence is violence.

I'm not saying violence is never required, but if you're resorting to violence when a smile and a chuckle will do, you're weak -- you don't have enough willpower to control yourself, or brains to think up an alternative.

I disagree. What kills you inside slowly, is all the authority figures telling you what a horrible person you are for defending yourself.

I mean, by all means if you live in a place where the cops will actually do something if someone hurts, just call the cops. But you have to remember that the world doesn't consist entirely of north america.

Self-defense and unprovoked violence are two entirely different things. The law recognizes this and so do most sentient beings.

Sadly, this does not include most school administrators.

Obviously, this doesn't apply to every single administrator. #include <std_disclaimer.h>

If I could go back and do it all again there'd be two or three more swung fists. Probably no more than that, either, because that's all it would take.

In fact I think this debate would be really different if defending yourself against being bullied actually required sustained violence, but instead rather we're in a world where I can ask "How many people have killed themselves that could have been saved by them instead swinging their fists once?" and get a number probably at least in the thousands.

This isn't just a philosophy debating match; children are dying over this, and a lot more are getting badly hurt.

Her abuse of me doesn't weigh on me nearly as much as mine of her, because in the latter I had a choice. So there you go.

No. They'll just learn that bullying you has serious consequences, and that they should find an other target.

"An armed society is a polite society." -- RAH

Where "armed" just means where people are willing and able to defend themselves.

Revenge has nothing to do with self-defense.

Laugh at them, turn them in to a joke whenever they attempt to do something to you, and eventually they'll realize that people are laughing at them, not what they are doing to you.

I did have to get physical a few times but it was only the odd extreme case where this didn't work.

The same thing happend last week when I run into the same guy late night. He was there with a dozen or so friends after a night out. I was there just to grab some pizza and get back to work. So he asks me if I knew anybody here. I just shook my head and said no. He asked me my name. I told him my name. He proceeds to yell out that I am here alone and don't know anyone. Then it came out that I knew several people in his group. He looked stupid and drunk. And I got a laugh at his expense. All by just playing dumb and being non-reactive.

It is this very mindset that perpetuates violence, it doesn't end it. For Sebastian, the line is clear "as soon as someone puts their hands on you," but everyone has a different line. Taunting someone every day for months can push someone beyond their line, and when they push you away out of desperation they have "put their hands on you."

Being strong and standing up for yourself does not require physical violence. Understanding the reason someone is picking on you is perhaps the best way to actually stop it, and perhaps even address the root cause, making the road better for the next person in line. When complaining about the bully in my elementary school, my parents explained to me the social situation that he was brought up in, and how we were so lucky in comparison. I didn't "love" them, but I understood them much better, and learned how to avoid getting in their way. Hitting back wouldn't have solved anything.

Kid stuff is kid stuff, adult stuff is different. That 9th grader had almost certainly never tortured someone with a car battery. Same with the muggers - who's to say that they're sane in the least? What if they're really strung-out and have knives, now you're going to the hospital.

In my view, it's never worth risking your life to protect your belongings. Be like Roger Sterling in Mad Men and give up your money & your jewelry.

Shooting an attacker is safer for you. It is usually far more expensive, though -- maybe 1-5k in legal costs even if it doesn't get much followup (and if it goes to trial, could be over 100k), potential civil suits, and of course the cost of firearms and training to even have the choice.

I would definitely toss a $500 wallet and run if it were at the time a safer choice, even with a firearm. But, I would have no problem killing to defend my life, either.

I was speaking mainly to a situation where you'd be inciting some sort of a fight or a struggle with someone crazy enough to attempt a mugging. In this case, I still stand by my feeling that you're better off complying.

If you're able, by all means, protect yourself. You'll find no objections from me there.

Now, a certain feeling of invincibility may be priceless to some people, but they're far less invincible than they think - if you go around expecting violence then it's probably more likely to happen to you. Not to mention that, statistically, you're shortening your lifetime more by owning a gun (I like guns but don't own one) than you're extending it by the small chance that someone's coming for your life and you actually see them coming.

Carrying a concealed weapon (where legal) has a lower benefit than carrying a cellphone and first aid/trauma kit (which I also carry, and will try to get to EMT-I certification again, if not paramedic), but I still think it's a net improvement in your personal safety, assuming you're trained and competent.

The biggest disadvantage is that in some states you can't go into a restaurant where alcohol is served (even if you're going for a meal and don't drink), and of course the fashion compromise of a 1-4 pound hunk of metal/plastic/wood.

I think most gun owners disbelieve "invincibility" even more than non-gun owners when it comes to guns -- handguns especially are fairly non-lethal (at 3', I'd rather have a knife), and give an advantage to he who initiates violence. I'd be very happy to trade a firearm for a Dune-style shield or something.

I think another factor is that a responsible gun owner who is carrying is probably more likely to avoid places where an incident might happen -- aside from bars, I'd also be a lot more likely to be less confrontational in traffic or other situations if I realized there was a potential it could escalate to shooting. I've never been involved in any kind of scuffle or anything while carrying a firearm, and while I actively avoid "bad areas" to the extent possible no matter what, it's another factor. Although I am willing to stop to render aid to stranded motorists when armed, whereas unless it's a very clearcut situation, just drive on (and optionally call 911) otherwise.

once somebody is threatening you with violence, you don't get to count on anything. especially if you act like an easy target.

When I tell people there's usually someone who tells me I should have fought back, or whatever. And I went through relief, anger, fear it would happen again and the thirst for revenge afterwards, replaying the situation and second-guessing myself, wondering if I should have fought back or done something differently.

But it's not worth the risk. My friend works in public housing in the area, and said the guy was probably a local gang member. These guys fight and carry knives from when they're children. I've never been in a real fight and I have a desk job - odds are that I would have ended up in hospital.

So I handed over the 40 pounds cash I had in my wallet, and he bailed.

A random encounter like this is a totally different situation to a bully at school, where you mostly know who you're dealing with. There's a couple of times I now realise I probably should have stood up for myself at school, but being mugged on the street is not the time to start learning to fight.

And unless they're already hardened gang members, this should work pretty well, and probably breaks no laws. And if they do do it again, live up to your promise, to the extent possible.

If they are hardened gang members, you should probably get your child out of the situation, because fighting back is a losing proposition.

I recall being bullied by a rather dull kid when in elementary school. I remember him relentlessly telling me he would kick my ass. I told my Dad and he recommended that if it push came to shove, to just punch him in the face. So, one day the kid came at me and I hit him (don't even remember where). I was never bothered again at that school.

Bullies reign when no one stands up to them.

I was that 10 year old kid. I had a junior black belt in karate at around 12 years old. My dad really kind of enjoyed it vicariously and was proud of my accomplishments. He also, like you, believed that I had attained some skills that could be used for real self defense. He told me that it should be used only as a last resort, as if it were a secret weapon. The fact is, it was nothing of the sort. I could never handle myself in a fight, and I never had the confidence that I could, either.

There are many martial arts dojos out there that sell exactly what kung fu movies sell: fantasy. These are the dojos that every kind of kid goes to and they all just love love love it, and their parents just think it's so great and fun. These are the dojos where you will see people lined up in rows to repeatedly kick and punch and block the air while yelling "kyah!" or something to that effect. Sometimes they'll kick and punch pads that instructors are holding, and sometimes they'll be paired off to "spar" really lightly with one another, where the mere soft contact of a gloved hand on the chest represents a hit. Memorization of fight/dance moves is a major part of progressing from each belt. The one thing that these dojos will not do is have your son or daughter fight anybody.

The simple fact is that you cannot learn to fight without fighting. Punching the air or a pad does not prepare you physically, emotionally, or mentally for punching a person. Totally dominating imaginary attackers in an elaborate dance may have something to do with arts, but absolutely nothing to do with martial. Not even a false sense of confidence is given to these kids, because when faced with a real threat, they know very well that they're not prepared. The false sense of confidence is sold to the parents.

It certainly doesn't hurt to take your kid to a dojo like this, because at least they have fun and get a decent workout. But the real reason I wanted to go as a kid was to learn how to fight, and my dad thought that was exactly what I was learning, and it ultimately proved to be a great disappointment because of these mismatched expectations.

I don't know what kind of dojo you take your kid to, but the advice from this random guy on the Internet is to make sure your expectations are being matched. A fun workout with a group of peers is good for a kid, but if you (and him) really want to develop fighting skills, I strongly recommend trying something like wrestling or Jiu-Jitsu. It needs to be a place where the kids are pitted against each other in a well-controlled environment, where the goal is to physically overpower your opponent.

It sounds odd/interesting to me and given that the rest of the article is well written, this puzzles me quite a bit. I normally associate such uses of 'make' with native speakers of Arabic, which obviously doesn't apply.

* "Video games could make violence on the whole seem more 'okay.'"

* "Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has promised to make violence on the basis of sexual orientation a priority for her office."

The only google result that seems similar to the original article is from asianoutlook.com:

"You can make violence on weeds, ideas, and terror, but not war."

In that sense, it's closer to the phrase "make war on", which is much more common. Without knowing any asian languages, I would assume that they use war and violence somewhat interchangeably, which would explain the odd phrasing.

I guess you get bullied when the other party things they have little to lose and lots(of pleasure) to gain. Soon as you signal they might have something to lose and they believe you they move on to the next victim.

A few times I remember just cursing out the bullies OUT LOUD. I was considered so weak that they never thought I'd do that. Once I did, the bullying stopped.

I got bullied a little in middle school. However, in a completely unrelated event, I said something with one feeling and someone nearby thought I said it in anger I guess.

Next thing I know, SWAT and local police are at my high school and somehow everyone knows who they're looking for.

Apparently "Really? OMG Im gonna kill her! lol" directly translates to "I'm going to bring a gun to school and murder her".

I was never messed with again and no one asked.

People who are bullied are bullied because of they way they are perceived by others. You notice how there are a lot of neutral people who nobody bullies?

There are the bullies on one extreme, then there are a lot of neutrals, then there are the bullied on the other extreme. Asking a person who is bullied to hit someone is not solving the problem at all, it is actually contributing to the 'weirdness' factor that made that person bullied in the first place. The people who are bullied are not bullied just because they look physically weak, but because they are giving off the wrong social vibe. Doing something like hitting someone is not addressing the real issue.

To stop a child from being bullied, you need to address the short term problem, and you need to adress the long term problem. The short term problem is that the people need to stop, and the long term problem is that he needs to gain a lot of confidence and properly learn how to integrate himself in a social situation. He needs to learn to assert himself, and not be weak.

The short term solution can be solved without violence. If a person is bullying you, and you just say nothing, just scowl and lean towards the person with your arms swinging free, look straight into the eyes of the people without blinking, speak in a low cold voice, then walk away without looking back you can almost always stop further aggravation. Most bullied people make the mistake of smiling and trying to laugh off the problem, then going into a body posture that says they are defensive, and hopping from foot to foot or fiddling with clothes, and looking down. This encourages the bullies, because you are displaying beta-male behaviour.

The long term solution involves forcing the child into a lot of social activities, so that he learns how to establish and build social hierachies. Also, a lot of physical activity, particular where he can get to dominate, and also team sports where he is working with people less competent than him will also help teach him to assert himself.

Saying somethin like "punch the person" is not only not very clever, it's also practically undoable for most bullied people. Most bullied kids are small wimpy and non-assertive kids. They can't punch anyone. Don't give this pointless advice.

My mom taught for many years in urban inner-city high schools. Had she stood up to bullies who bullied other kids or teachers she would have had to deal with bullies whose parents had been shot or killed in drug deals. There is a different mentality there.

Sometimes a show of strength is the best thing, sometimes a show of kindness is the best thing.

The point you've missed in this article isn't to START a fight. It's that if someone starts one with you, you better bloody well finish it. The key phrase, "as soon as someone puts their hands on you..."

This isn't about defending an assault of words with an assault of fists. This is about defending yourself from violent, aggressive morons. Walking away from someone intent on hitting you will just result in you getting hit from behind. The best solution is to dig in and hope for the best. You're gonna cop a hiding anyway, at least defend yourself.

I don't think anyone is suggesting violence as a solution to bullying. But you sure as hell can't defend yourself from violence by joining in more social activities.

You see - everything you said is true, just the order is completely wrong. You see, its impossible to do what you proposed as an act of assertion. Since one would need to already be confident and assertive.

And that's just why its so hard to do if you're the weak bullied kid. You'd need to have solved the long term problem, before you can even think to tackle the short term.

In middle school, teaching me to be less weird would have been pretty difficult. Teaching me to hit back--well, I didn't even have to be taught. Turned out hitting back stopped the bullying, and growing up stopped the weirdness (at least, I think it did).

Your advice is probably good for kids who are just unpopular and weird. Once the line is crossed into violence, though, it's a different class of problem. There are only two responses to violence: involve the authorities, or if the authorities aren't present or don't care, hit back. The situation in that respect is more like prison than like coaching a weird kid in social skills.

Culture of violence? That already exists as soon as kids are getting bullied. A culture of violence is only solved when adults in authority care enough to become involved. People don't physically bully each other at work because if you did, the police would take you to jail. People do physically bully each other in school and in prison because in both cases, the authorities don't care.

My group of geek friends and I took our share of hassling in the first week. It was probably day 4 when one of the bullies had a go at a friend of mine (over a paper aeroplane if I recall) so I stood up to him. I then got backed into a corner by 2 or 3 of them who started really hammering me.

Something snapped in me.

I started kicking, punching, kneeing, throwing windmills and swearing like a crazy person. I don't know how long it was before a teacher came out and broke it up. But I'm sure it wasn't long, and I'm dead certain that I barely made contact with anything. We all sat in the principals office and got a stern talking to. The older kids were suspended, I was let off...probably because my brothers were star pupils.

They thought I was bat-shit crazy. For the next 6 years I wasn't hassled again.

Today as a parent, I give the same advice to my children. We are a minority in our neighborhood and my kids go to great school. They have been through multiple attacks from bullies. My son is in middle school and so far has been able to fight back at many would be bullies. I made it clear to the principal and some parents of bullies that my children are permitted to fight back when attacked, that I will stand by them in all circumstances.

So far it has been working pretty well next year my daughter will be in high school and my son is a reputed defensive player in the basketball team.

Where I come from, the third kid, who was pretending to be a bystander all along, with the gun under his shirt, would've shot you from behind your back.

Just because resorting to violence to deal with bullies works doesn't mean you should go all rambo with actual criminals.

b) It gives him a hold over the other two. If you're unfortunate enough to be attacked by a group, you'll often find that the physically smallest person calls the shots. They may look like a beta (waiting until the bigger guys have had their fun) but this is misleading. In a situation like this your aim is to isolate this person from his muscle - easier said than done, of course.

c) If they're professionals rather than doing it for kicks, dead men tell no tales. Forensic science helps, but only up to a point. A rainy night in a back alley won't leave much evidence, unless the criminal is foolish enough to retain a weapon or cell phone.

Given that I was one of the smallest guys in the class, that naturally meant I became a target.

At first I would try to ignore it, but it never went away.

Well, one day I decided I wasn't going to take it and I fought back. I hit him a few times and we rumbled together and I ended up having him in a 'sleeper hold' - i.e. my arm around & in front of his neck, with my other arm locked around the back of his head - with him fading quickly.

In a fit of desperation he quickly pulled out a compass (the one that had a 1-inch long point) and stabbed me in my arm - to get me to let go. Well, it worked, I let go instantly.

The pain was intense - but he was able to get his breath back. As soon as we both realized what he did, I turned to walk to the bathroom (because it had started bleeding by now), but he thought I was going to the principal's office. Naturally he ran after me apologizing profusely and literally BEGGED me not to go to the principal.

I bluffed a bit, and indicated to him that if he ever troubled me again I am going straight there.

That was the end of that...for the rest of my high school career he never troubled me again. As a matter of fact, if he ever saw anyone else try picking on me, he would kinda take up for me.

So while I wouldn't say 'take something hard and knock them in the back of their head' but simply fighting back and standing up for yourself can help significantly.

Although, a word of caution, I could have easily been stabbed elsewhere (like my eye, or head). So take that for what it's worth and advise your kids of the real potential consequences of fighting back - not to mention further retribution by the bully's friends (which is a very real possibility here in Jamaica).

That being said, I am definitely going to advise my son to hit back - but do it wisely and make sure not to do TOO much damage. i.e. once they back off, stop, leave, and report it (or not, as my case proved) or call me to at least let me know there was an issue.

Edit: Oh and for the record, the wound took about 2 months to heal properly and hurt like a mother-lover, for what it's worth.

To give some idea of what the text is like, here's a little bit of it from a section called "Where Do My Rights End?":

   Justified Choices of the Self:
   1. Whether or not to violently defend itself against violence; 
   2. Whether or not to violently defend someone else from violence.
   3. Whether or not to destroy itself.
   4. Whether or not to help a weaker self destroy itself, to  save it from a worse fate.

   Conditions: 
   1. No attachment to nonviolent creeds. 
   2. No attachment to collectivity or authority which might prohibit the self from removing itself from "the line of fire"
   Caveat to (1) and (2): So-called involunrtary attachments are not binding..." (pg 81-82. Abbr. Edition)

   ...

Vollmann would fully support responding to violence in kind, there's a long section on non-violent movements and their utter hopelessness in the face of regimes unwilling (like bullies) to tolerate any dissent.

[The classic example of this is perhaps Harry Turteldove's story "The Last Article," which proposes Ghandi campaigning in a Nazi occupied India and ends just as you would expect it to.]

Win or lose, getting beat up is not the end of the world. Some people are tougher and that's just the way it is. Winning a fight against a bully is not nearly as important as showing the balls to fight even if you don't think you stand a chance. It won't always produce good results one-off, but overall it'll be worth it.

As for some of these comments advising trickery like showing strength, staring, talking crap etc. Doesn't work. Once you've been in a few fights you understand this. A lot of it's on a subconscious level and your body language will make it obvious that you're trying to avoid a fight while pretending to act mean. People sense that and it's the absolute quickest way to lose a few teeth. So what if he's bigger and stronger? The quickest way to end a fight is to hit hard and fast with an utter lack of fear. If you really are at a huge disadvantage then yeah it won't go so well. But if that's the case you weren't going to scare him off with intellectual techniques either.

You could still compensate your lesser size with a lead pipe or a stick.

It all depends on the context of course. If somebody would try to do me serious harm, of course I would kick his balls. If it is just about domination, might not be such a good idea. Even more so with scarier stuff (knives, hard objects) - this could become dangerous really fast.

I guess if Bobby Bully is putting beans in your pants you can try your karate kid routine on him. Maybe Eye of The Tiger will start playing and after you make him cry by ballet kicking him in the nose you and Elisabeth Shue can go share a milkshake at Pop's and then make out at the drive in. But in real life Jesus and Jose and their 20 cousins and homies just show up after school and steal all your clothes, your bike, your money and throw you into the dumpster.

I guess I don't ever really believe these stories, because whenever i've seen someone fight back it just turned into a drawn out war, not some fairytale DeGrassi afterschool special outcome where the bully "learned his place"

That said, all of the "I was about to beat up a mob boss in Hong Kong because I'm so cool like that" was over the top (i.e. probably fake).

Talking alone does almost nothing. Now if you defend yourself and then treat the bully like a human being and even try to be a friend you might make some headway.

When you suggest defending yourself, and then trying to be helpful in making the bully no longer a bully, that's a completely different strategy than what others are suggesting, one I wouldn't mind seeing tried out more! What others are suggesting is just beat the bully and now he's someone else's problem.

While I may have educated my children in how to defend themselves. I have also taught them that every individual has value. My hope is that they understand the aggressor is also valuable enough treat with respect.

I guess not all schools are the same. There is no way this would happen in any school I went to. Such school wouldn't probably even exist for a long time. Tbh, if such incident happened more than once, it would probably end up on national news. Then again, I'm not in US. Sure, there were bullies, but what you describe is just as completely foreign concept as your experience is to me.

Is locking the skinny kid in a locker until he pisses himself real bullying?

Is one kid holding another one down while a second one punches him real bullying?

It may not be guns, knives and chains, but the suffering is real. Also, what makes this kind of middle-class bullying worse is that

A) it's not expected -- it's different from the rest of these kids' lives, which are non-violent

B) educated middle-class parents give their kids bad advice like "don't fight back, violence doesn't solve anything".

"[I]n real life Jesus and Jose and their 20 cousins and homies just show up ..."

Jesus and Jose? Homies? Just. Stop.

Was it really necessary to inject some sort of pathetic, dogwhistle racial component into this? Why are you trying to cast a universal problem like bullying into a phenomenon where the scary minorities are picking on white kids?

I went to school at a suburb of Chicago where two friends died by being shot by gang members (Latin Kings), a kid that sat in front of me in Spanish murdered his girlfriend and went to prison, and drug deals were common in the hallways. But standing up to bullies was still better than backing down.

That said, the gang members were rarely if ever the bullies; not unless they suspected you were in a rival gang. The bullies were the kids that wanted a power trip, mainly the Seniors and mainly the sports guys.

If you give in you're doomed to be giving up your money or whatever again and again and again. You fight back, and that's usually going to be the end of it. People that fight back aren't fun; the weak ones that cry and give you stuff, that's where the fun is. The bullies want a reward with little effort. The gangs usually have a personal vendetta against you, your family, your different gang, your race, or something else. That's a whole different issue and one that's not dealt with in the same simple way.

Don't confuse gangs and bullies, they're two very different beasts.

I'm as surprised as you are that it's #1 on HN - I posted it to my blog for my readers, I didn't think it'd get submitted as a top level post or rise up the frontpage.

That said, everything on my end is real - I was quoting another author who said he was bullied quite badly, and his story sounds true but I can't confirm that.

> It reads like some fat kid ender's game revenge fantasy.

Eh, there's no need to be nasty, that doesn't add to the conversation. The entry is all true. Plenty of people here know me, I can run my schools and dates by someone if anyone really cares. Good luck to you.

And, the bullies actually do know how to fight.

Actually, for me, being nice worked out just right. After some time, the few bullies that bothered me found themselves enemies of the school, including some other bullies. Serves them right.

Humans don't work that way. Years of ingrained low self worth take years of effort to correct. Going Joe Pesci on one of them works in minutes.

I'm not a violent person. I never have been and never will be. I do not consider it a valid way to solve problems. Reverting to our animal nature is rejecting the progress we have made in our brains overriding unproductive basic survival impulses in favour of smarter solutions.

That's not to say this approach doesn't work. For some people it works perfectly. But hitting back only works if you're stronger than them. Otherwise they'll just kick your ass and things will get worse. And even if it works, all you've done is validate the world view that might makes right.

The world is full of idiots who ruin the lives of others, both at the micro level of domestic abuse and the macro level of dictatorships, because of this principle. It's the law of the jungle, and you know what? We don't live in the fucking jungle any more. We live in a civilized society, where intelligence can triumph over brute strength.

Nobody should know that better than HN, a community of nerds who dream of changing the world one keystroke at a time. I'm disappointed to see how much support there is for this idea.

The smart solution to bullying is to make it socially unacceptable. Kids don't take dumps in the hallways because there's no payoff to doing so. But if you beat up the unpopular kid, you get some credibility. Rob them of that credibility, rob them of their motivation, and you end bullying, without swinging a fist.

Sure, the bullied kid — which generally has low sociability, either from the start or following the ostracization coming along with the bullying, and few if any friends — is going to make bullying "socially unacceptable".

That's a very nice feel-good declaration, but it's about as helpful as "smack yourself in the mouth to help them so the beating is shorter"

And until then?

Bullying is assault. The first time the police gets involved, it will be unpleasant for the bully. The second time, he gets arrested. The next bully to come along might realize he doesn't want a criminal record, and if he doesn't, his parents might. And if they don't stop, they get sent away to juvie.

Why do we assume highschool/middleschool kids are somehow untouchable by the law?

Ever had to actually get the police to follow up on something like that? They'll take your report... but if no one is injured, it often ends there.

I can't even begin to list how many things are wrong with this. So fighting is only worth it when you know you're going to win?

The author's point is if you stand up for yourself against a much bigger and stronger bully, you WILL get your ass kicked. But that's fine. Everybody gets their ass kicked once in a while. But the fact that you were not afraid to stand up for yourself gets you respect. The bullies will likely move on onto the easier targets that don't fight back.

I agree with 99% of this article. Except this:

> I’ve got some sets of names I’d name my sons as they’re born. They’re unconventional names – Cosimo Marshall or Aurelius Marshall if the boy’s mother was Italian, Zhuge Marshall if he was Chinese. The boy will likely get teased.

Ya think?? And even though you realize it, you're still planning to do it? I'm sure the kid will be VERY grateful when he grows up.

It's bizarre this is even considered, because this whole thread is filled with revenge fantasies about bullies. Why would you think the bully is just going to think "oh yes, zhuge omarion lionhearted is the superior fighter, I concede" like in some corny kung-fu movie? If you hurt a bully, they are just going to plot out how they are going to hurt you worse the next chance they get...

Finally, if violence is truly the answer, why not just go all-out Columbine from the beginning? There's no more bullying when the bully is dead. Then the problem is truly "solved," right?

It doesn't work like that. In practice, the bully will take the path of least resistance and pick on someone else. Which sucks for them, but the hierarchy has now shifted - the original victim has moved up, but the capability/social capital of the new lowest member of the group is still higher than theirs was. It doesn't take many iterations of this cycle before the bully will either meet their match or have a critical mass of the class openly against them.

This happened in my primary school, actually, the bully in this case was a kid who'd been held back from a higher year. Eventually simply no-one would talk to him. Problem solved.

yhe above simple logic and my own personal experience fighting back is what this is based on, not some corny Kung foo movie.

Don't put words into others mouths, its rude and unnecessary.

Re your going columbine troll, the response should be limited to what's required. Snd, obviously, violence is already the supreme authority and final resort in society - that's what police and the military are for.

Bullying isn't about you to the bully. Its about them, and picking on someone. The someone isn't that important, and when you become the someone who is more expensive to screw with, they leave you alone usually.

(And I think this sort of thing as an adult is stupid and a good way to go to jail, but at 10, it works fine).

Naming your kid a name to MAKE SURE he gets bullied in order for him to grow up tough sounds insane to me... regardless of the great Johnny Cash song

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

"The core story of the song was inspired by humorist Jean Shepherd, a close friend of Shel Silverstein, who was often taunted as a child because of his feminine-sounding name."

You might recognize Jean Shepherd as the author of the stories that were turned into the holiday movie A Christmas Story (he also served as narrator in that movie)

Extra Credit: Watch the Scut Farkus beatdown scene again.

Years later, at a party, I got into a fight with a punk (I mean a real punk, with a stupid haircut). He was acting like a twat, bothering people, like they do, and I told him to piss off and he headbutted me in the face, breaking my nose. And actually, while not something you'd want to happen every day, it's not too bad, a lot of blood but it doesn't really hurt. Then I kicked his ass.

> Ya think?? And even though you realize it, you're still planning to do it? I'm sure the kid will be VERY grateful when he grows up.

Unconventional names get you teased as a kid, and remembered as an adult. I think it's a good tradeoff.

Not true. Bullies tend to pick on people who won't fight back* because they're easy prey. If you demonstrate, even by losing, that you're not willing to take it from them anymore and that you will resist, you are no longer easy prey.

*Obviously this isn't true 100% of the time, but more often than not.

You don't need to be stronger, or a better fighter, you just need to make fighting you painful enough that the pain outweighs the gain. This is one of the key principles of deterrence (even on an international scale) -- you don't need to be strong enough to win the fight, you just have to be strong/vicious enough to inflict enough pain that "not fighting" becomes a better option for your opponent.

Or he'll "pick on you" with a huge stick out of kicking range, or he'll guard his nuts next time he's got you in a headlock.

Which weakens the headlock and leaves something else vulnerable (unless he's got three arms).

See, but that's the crux of the entire issue, and you (nor the OP) have not offered statistics backing this up. Anecdotes are not data, so I don't care if this "worked for me" or whatever.

A bully who gets his ass kicked, or doesn't win soundly enough, could easily escalate the next encounter with a knife or bat or something worse. Or maybe not! I don't know, neither do you or the OP, and so maybe we should not be making authoritative declarations about these things without consulting actual research.

I was a violent person in elementary school and Jr. High. I was made fun of constantly and things occasionally came to blows.

I usually won.

But it didn't help much, really, even if it satisfied me at the time to literally pound-in the heads of kids who'd been making me miserable.

Teasing and bullying only seem like they are about someone seeming weak. They're about a mob mentality. That is what needs to be addressed. I'd say a social atmosphere where non-conformists are fair game is mostly what stimulates bullies. Individual kids fighting back is not really going to be the solution.

Do you think it was just non-conformity? The meanness of children in general? Is this something that all humans have? Or some american dysfunction? Some western dysfunction?

The smart solution to smoking is to make it socially unacceptable.

The smart solution to binge drinking is to make it socially unacceptable.

The smart solution to football violence is to make it socially unacceptable.

etc etc.

The real smart thing is for every corner of society, from education to prosecution, to realise that there is no blanket golden solution to every problem.

His solution was to make hijabs mandatory for prostitutes at all time. It was one of the most successful mass persuasion tactics he ever used, and if you visit modern day Turkey almost no one wears hijabs.

Edit: Scratch what I said above about modern day turkey, my data is old and unsourced.