This is magical thinking. "If I do A, he will do B" as if it were a cosmic law. No such deal exists! Bully has a whole alphabet of responses to choose from, including taking you up on your challenge.

You need to take a hard look at what you're suggesting here. You're describing people who are verbally violent. You're telling people that the way to get them to stop is by using physical violence. You're escalating the situation. You're doing this on the assumption that verbally violent people are not willing to go further. This is false. The problem with violent people is there's always someone willing to go further than you.

What you're actually doing is telling kids to make a threat display. Like a thug displaying his gun to intimidate the other person into backing down. This is an effective deterrent but you better be able and willing to follow up on that threat if necessary. If you do this, all bets are off. There is no guarantee that your opponent will back down. It's also possible that your threat will be perceived as a challenge to his masculity, especially if you do it in front of his peers. He'll think he'll have no choice but to take you on because he'll lose face if he doesn't.

If you're going to do this, you better be able to quickly incapacitate your opponent. I don't mean punching his face once and walking away victorious. I mean literally breaking his jaw and then following up with more attacks until he's unconscious on the floor. Then you better hope that this display of extreme violence was enough to intimidate any other bullies hanging around or you'll have to do the same thing to them before they gang up on you. If at any point your confidence in your ability to do this ever wavers, you should not attempt it.

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.

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.

I don't like this advice, because I don't want to ever be forced to play this game. If you threaten my physical safety, I'm either going to ignore you and move along, give in and go the police afterward, or I'm going to kill you. Not figuratively; there is no game. I hope to never get to that point, but there is no chance that I'd try to beat an aggressor with my fists fair-and-square. Instead, I will ensure that they never threaten me again.

That's the nuclear option.

> If bullying is guaranteed to result in a punch in the face, it will change the risk/reward calculation dramatically and make 99% of it not worth it.

This just isn't how violence happens. Bullies don't select targets they can't win against. In addition to that, they often come in groups. Victim managed to punch one guy? Not only is it likely that he'll overpower the victim, his buddies are there to make sure he doesn't lose.

"Just defend yourself" is what leads to kids bringing weapons to school. Because that actually is how you defend yourself against violent thugs and certainly what a responsible adult would do when faced with unprovoked violence.

But son, as soon as someone puts their hands on you, they’ve crossed a line. Fuck them up. It’s the only thing these vicious freaks understand. They’re wild animals. They make violence on you, you need to show them that you’re the stronger, bigger animal. When someone attacks you maliciously for no reason, you need to impose your will on them.

All unwelcome contact is considered to be enemy contact, and nuclear retaliation is offered as the solution.

And yet not all contact is roughhousing, not all roughhousing is bullying, and not all bullying justifies maximum retaliation. Of course, implicit in this advice is the ability to distinguish how offensive or aggressive an unwanted contact actually is, and to measure one's response appropriately...exactly the sort of thing kids (usually) learn by experience, but (frequently) miss when receiving knowledge transmissions from a trusted moral authority.

This is not an argument for pacifism or passivity: I am well aware that not all aggressive people secretly want to be loved or are just having difficulty making polite conversation. I was a small child and remain a fairly small adult; I've been bullied (in school) and attacked by various street criminals (as an adult) - more than most people, I'd guess. I dislike fights and haven't started one since age 8 or so, but I will finish one if it is forced upon me, and also enjoy non-competitive martial arts (ie fighting with other students for enjoyment of skill rather than pursuit of belts).

Going all-out in response to attack is a poor strategy, rooted in fear rather than confidence. It may not be appropriate in the first place; indeed, bullies and criminals frequently exhibit a victim mentality and complain that the target of their aggression 'made them do it.' Overlooking this factor assures that sooner or later a person will end up wondering how s/he ended up being the bad gal/guy - if not for physical fighting, then in an employment or domestic context. Secondly, it may not be necessary: the aim of self-defense is to end the confrontation and deter future attacks, and most attacks are experimental or opportunistic. Such opponents will quickly fold in face of equivalent resistance, and often when confronted with far less (eg a push in response to a punch). Violently revenging your hurt feelings, rather than merely defending your hurt person, forces your attacker into defending themselves with an least an equivalent degree of fervor. You win by holding your ground and seeing your opponent quit; to withholding this option is to rob yourself of your own victory. No outcome that takes place under duress yields certainty to the immediate beneficiary. Thirdly, if your attacker is serious and dangerous, then going all-out can be quite dangerous. Such moves are more apparent and less calculated, and an experienced opponent can easily exploit this to use your own strength against you.

Having been on both ends of this equation, I feel comfortable in saying that the person who loses their temper will lose any resulting fight too. Conflicts are mental problems, to which the physical aspects are often only a footnote.

One hallmark of a bully is a sophisticated ability to pick victims who won't put up a fight. When you urge your child to stand up to a bully, you're asking him to do something that the bully already figured out he was unlikely to do. That's why the bully picked him in the first place. Bullies tend to choose victims who are socially withdrawn, seem anxious or fearful, are nervous in new situations, or have some physical characteristic that might make them more vulnerable.

What makes me angry is that the author is essentially arguing that the kid should continue to be vulnerable and passive, rather than stand up for themselves.

If bullies tend to pick on people who are unlikely to fight back, you should fight back so they'll move on to an easier target.

Analogy: this is like saying that you shouldn't advise someone whose website just got hacked to secure their app, because they got hacked because they didn't follow proper security protocol, and are therefore unlikely to follow your advice.

Do you think he should do that even if at personal harm to himself (physical or otherwise but mainly physical)?

Practically every story in this thread, notably including your own, was unprovoked. An extremely common theme is that bullies pick weak targets, if the victim fights back they pick another target. There's no provocation involved.

It doesn't matter whether a bully internally believes their actions are justified, there are basic facts and societal standards. If I beat you up for looking at me funny and I say it's justified because you provoked me with your glance, that's unreasonable nonsense and claiming subjectivity doesn't suddenly make me sympathetic.

> there's a lot of talk about legality of self-defense and how if one's actions tip over into being too aggressive, it can go from being self-defense to assault very quickly and become illegal

The legal world of adults actually has teeth in penalizing violence which doesn't really apply to the world of children. Not only would child victims be exempt from adult laws when fighting back, it is in their best interest to do so because their bullies are also exempt from adult laws in their violence against the victim. That means that victims can expect to be bullied in the future since they aren't protected by laws like adults are.

If your only point here is that fighting back can go too far, guess what, so can bullying.

> I think it may show that there are ways to resolve such conflicts with words

I don't think anyone here is saying that conflicts cannot be resolved with words, the point in contention here is whether it solves anything for bullied children. I can't even honestly characterize your anecdote as bullying, at no point was harm threatened or even implied. When a group of teen classmates corner you and threaten to beat you up if you don't give them your lunch money, do you honestly believe a confident remark about mutual respect can be a solution there?

This isn't really as ambiguous as you present it to be, the obvious answer is "when you do it to them unprovoked, that's what distinguishes bullying from self-defense".

There are scores of comments here describing a strategy that worked for them, it's evidently effective. Have you ever tried what you're preaching with real childhood bullies? I'm naturally skeptical that it's effective to ask an immature victim to play therapist with an immature bully, but I might find it more believable if you mentioned literally any reasoning or evidence at all suggesting it could work.

I agree if I believe I did it to them unprovoked, then it would be bullying; however, how often do you think a person believes they're doing it to someone unprovoked? The receiver may believe it's unprovoked, but I'd imagine the person delivering the blow in that moment may think it was provoked. I don't think most people will self-identify as a bully, but I may be wrong about that.

Also, with regards to self-defense, in the Krav Maga and other self-defense courses I've taken, there's a lot of talk about legality of self-defense and how if one's actions tip over into being too aggressive, it can go from being self-defense to assault very quickly and become illegal. So even in physical self-defense cases, who is the defender and aggressor can change quickly depending on perspective.

> Have you ever tried what you're preaching with real childhood bullies?

Hmm, maybe not real childhood bullies because I started focusing on this in my mid-20s, however I can give one story from a few years ago. I went to a picnic with my ex-girlfriend and her family was there. First time meeting the family. One of the distant cousins came up and offered me a drink. I said I had just made a deal with myself I wouldn't drink alcohol for a month and it was just the first week. He said that he didn't know me and I was new to the culture and in his culture they make drinks for people. I said no, I didn't want an alcoholic drink. He said that he makes the drink for me to know how to trust me, if I won't take it, how will he know to trust me, it's a matter of respect. I told him:

"Listen, I made a deal with myself I wouldn't drink alcohol for a month. So while I want to respect you, I also want to respect myself."

The guy stopped trying to guilt me into taking a drink and I think walked away.

So while it may not be as an extreme example of what kids can do to each other or other adults can do, I think it may show that there are ways to resolve such conflicts with words that aren't playing therapist so much as expressing indignation and anger and strong confidence in what we want, without demonizing the other side for what they want.

I rarely assume that someone who threatens me with violence cares about my well-being.

You're assuming that if you comply, you won't get your ass kicked. Sometimes, you're going to get your ass kicked regardless so the only question is whether they're going to pay a price for doing so.

Curiously enough, bullies don't like the risk of damage, even if they "win" the fight.

> where intelligence can triumph over brute strength.

"can" is often by the grace of folks who have brute strength.

Unless it's you who ends up bloody, maimed, or dead, which I submit is the more likely outcome when faced with multiple bullies who are not all stupid and can lay ambushes for you as easily as you for them.

> I had [...], established a reputation that [..] if you crossed various lines there was absolutely no limit to what I'd do to retaliate (note, with a continuum of force, just no upper limit to it).

You got lucky that you never went up against someone with the same philosophy. A continuous escalation of violence is something you need to avoid at all costs.

Retalitate, sure, but not using violence, at least unless you have exhausted all other options. And kids suck at judging whether they have, because they misjudge risks and will e.g. consider reporting to the police and being judged a sissy a greater risk than entering a violent confrontation that could leave them permanently disabled.

Plenty of bullies will escalate until they get what they want.

My experience is that it mostly starts there. Most of male "bullying" is establishing physical dominance. It's almost all intimidation, physical threats, pushing/shoving, fighting. The psychological, gossipy, demeaning sort of bullying is more from the females.

Verbally, yes - though it never escalated to actual violence. To be fair, they weren't "career" bullies (for the lack of a better word), but simply a clique of kids (that were otherwise decent in school) that like to make fun of other people - turns out that actually not being afraid and confronting them is all it took to 1) stop the bullying and 2) completely change the dynamics of the relationship where they saw me as one of theirs and from that on we had decent interactions. The only violent incident I was involved in had nothing to do with bullying and was about stealing my phone.

> The only place where violence is tolerated is school

Violence still costs significantly more than verbal bullying, so most bullies would generally not want to resort to it if they can avoid it. If your option is 1) pick on the weak kid or 2) pick on the weak kid that shows a willingness to fight, you will pick option 1 because option 2 will still attract significant more attention from authority even if you easily win the physical fight.

I'm sure there are gangs of violent bullies, but for each one of those there's probably hundreds of verbal bullies that just pick on people verbally for fun and have no desire for violence or even significant confrontation because it's too much risk & effort. Standing your ground would at least protect you against those as they'd rather move onto an easier target. Will it protect you against 100% of bullying? No. Will it protect you against 90% of it? Very likely.

Then it isn't violence. Bullying implies violence. You're describing something else.

Not true. Guys are very effective at spreading lies about people and in using condescension and insults. Men and boys are very effective in demeaning other people.

They absolutely not limit to physical violence - especially at teenage age. In fact, their most common way to get at others are words. The physical violence happens on top of it.