In this day and age of political bullying, I start with a great video about stopping bullying — and then get to illustrations, both wise and silly.
There’s a lot of unintentional humor in What Happened, as Hillary Clinton cluelessly reveals that she is a foolish, deceitful, entitled, nasty woman.
I’m still slogging my way through Hillary’s turgid tome, What Happened. The more one reads it, the more one realizes how accurate the joke in the post to the left: What Happened [by] Hillary Rodham Clinton really is a book that has both the question and answer on the front cover.
Hillary, working hard to sell herself, comes across as just an awful woman or, on second thought, an awful simulacrum of a woman. There’s no there there. Instead, there’s a narcissist defined by her core emptiness.
Two recent reviews perfectly sum up everything that’s wrong with the book. If you ignore the usual Trump-bashing that is required from all Progressives, you cannot do better than to read this review from the Huffington Post. It is vicious and entirely on point. Also, Kyle Smith’s review perfectly articulates my thoughts as I slog my way through the book.
Given the quality reviews already out there, this post is not going to be a book review (especially because I’ve only read 30% of the book so far). Instead, I’ll share with you those passages that I found hilarious (Hillary-ous?) although Hillary did not mean them to be so. I’ll also throw in a few ironies, some sarcasm, and the occasional moment when common sense runs into Hillary’s self-serving arguments.
To begin with there’s the endless name-dropping from someone who keeps insisting that she’s just an ordinary person, completely tuned in to the lives of ordinary people around her. Here’s a representative passage, describing her idea of some R&R during the campaign:
One beautiful summer evening, Jimmy and Jane Buffett hosted a concert for us at their home in the Hamptons on Long Island. I was the first presidential candidate Jimmy ever endorsed, and he wanted to do something special for me. So he, Jon Bon Jovi, and Paul McCartney played a set in a tent full of twinkly lights, and everyone danced on the lawn under the stars. It was magical. (Clinton, Hillary Rodham. What Happened (Kindle Locations 1379-1382), Simon & Schuster edition.)
I don’t know that I’ll ever feel the same again about Jimmy Buffett. I already lost interest in Paul McCartney because of his Bush bashing.
One of the points critics have made about both Hillary and her book is that she’s the ultimate “Progressive as micromanaging expert.” There really is no big political picture. There’s just Hillary’s “I know what’s best” attitude, one that sees her following every meeting with a “regular” person by announcing that she has a new policy initiative in her bag of tricks. For example, she took on bullying:
Many kids asked what I would do about bullying, which made me want to become President even more. I had an initiative called Better Than Bullying ready to go. (What Happened (Kindle Locations 1387-1388).)
First of all, this is really not a presidential issue and a presidential candidate shouldn’t be wasting time on it. Second of all, the lack of self-awareness is hysterical. After all, this is the same First Lady described as a monster of abuse when it came to Vince Foster: [Read more…]
Scott Adams says don’t let Clinton’s unconscionable bullies win. Scott Adams, who’s called this election season with amazing accuracy, has written what may be his most important post to date. In it, he calls out the bullies that populate the Clinton camp. Unsurprisingly, Adams has lots of stories about bullying from the Left, including car keying, sign stealing, public shaming, and even job loss. But that’s business as usual on the Left. This is what really gets Adams’ goat:
Team Clinton has succeeded in perpetuating one of the greatest evils I have seen in my lifetime. Her side has branded Trump supporters (40%+ of voters) as Nazis, sexists, homophobes, racists, and a few other fighting words. Their argument is built on confirmation bias and persuasion. But facts don’t matter because facts never matter in politics. What matters is that Clinton’s framing of Trump provides moral cover for any bullying behavior online or in person. No one can be a bad person for opposing Hitler, right?
Yes, yes, I realize Trump supporters say bad things about Clinton supporters too. I don’t defend the bad apples on either side. I’ll just point out that Trump’s message is about uniting all Americans under one flag. The Clinton message is that some Americans are good people and the other 40% are some form of deplorables, deserving of shame, vandalism, punishing taxation, and violence. She has literally turned Americans on each other. It is hard for me to imagine a worse thing for a presidential candidate to do.
I’ll say that again.
As far as I can tell, the worst thing a presidential candidate can do is turn Americans against each other. Clinton is doing that, intentionally.
Adams’ post is a must read, must share post. If you’ve hitherto been lukewarm about Trump and feel that Hillary is the “safer” candidate, ask yourself if a candidate is really safe when she and her followers are bullies who are perfectly ready to destroy the American fabric if that’s what it takes to gain power (or, rather, to keep the power Obama has aggregated in the government).
Near the end of his talk about American communists’ long-term plan (now coming to fruition) to flood America with a permanent Democrat majority through Hispanic amnesty, Trevor Loudon tossed in an interesting throwaway. When someone asked him why Leftists would want to reduce the US to the status of a Latin American banana Republic, he said that, in a conversation with Tammy Bruce (a former hard Leftist herself), she told him “They’re all damaged individuals.” That is, we have a powerful political movement made up of damaged people out for revenge.
That notion popped into my mind again today when I read on my Facebook stream the newest attack against the Tom Cotton letter. (You’ll recall that the first attack was to call Cotton and the other signatories “traitors” and “Logan Act violators,” followed by efforts to claim that reserve officers violated various military codes.) The newest claim that’s come to my attention is that Cotton and Co. are AIPAC’s puppets:
One of my pet peeves is bullying. I’m not talking about bullying amongst students, although I certainly don’t like that. I’m talking about the bullying from school districts and Progressive parents who work overtime to ensure that children are brainwashed into fearing self-defense so much that they would rather be led as lambs to the slaughter than stand up for themselves. The schools are dividing students into two classes: the bullies and their institutionally created helpless victims.
I’m fulminating about this because of a story I found in the San Jose Mercury News. There really was bullying going on — students attacked a 15-year-old classmate — but what makes me crazy is the fact that the mother ordered her child to take a beating, while the child celebrated the fact that it was better to get beaten up than to have problems with the school administrators (emphasis mine):
Ann Benediktsson, a 15-year-old Dougherty Valley High School student, was walking home on Thursday when a classmate approached her to say she would soon face a peer in a fight.
Ann’s mother, on the phone with her at the time, told her two things: Run home, and if a fight happens, do not fight back.
“It was the hardest thing I have ever had to say in my life,” Kate Benediktsson recalled. “I felt useless.”
Minutes after speaking to her mother, Ann ran into her peer in a park along with over two dozen other students, waiting to witness the event. While Ann attempted to keep her attacker from pulling her hair and socking her jaw, the bystanders pulled out their phones and filmed. In a video Benediktsson obtained of the fight that she later posted to YouTube, students can be heard egging on the fight, sometimes cheering when Ann’s attacker made contact.
Ann never threw a punch.
“I am proud of how I handled it,” Ann said. “I’m glad I didn’t hit back because the principal and teachers would have just said it was a spat between teenagers.”
I cannot believe that a mother told her child to be a punching bag for bullies. Moreover, I cannot believe that a mother told this to her girl child. One of the primary lessons women learn in every self-defense class is this: if you fight back against someone who is assaulting you, you are likely to suffer physical injuries, but you are also much less likely than the passive victim to be raped or killed.
In the African savannah, when lions stalk wildebeests or gazelles, the lions do not like to have to work hard for their meal. They want the lame and the weak stragglers, not the vigorous animals that put up a fight. Human predators are the same. A women who walks with an upright, energetic step, and who is aware of her surroundings, simply isn’t as appealing as the gal shuffling along with her head down. And if that shuffling gal, when attacked, suddenly finds some gumption and fights back, the predator will often back off in any event and look for an easier victim. (For more on the psychology of self-defense, I highly recommend Gavin de Becker’s The Gift of Fear and Other Survival Signals that Protect Us From Violence.)
The mother in the above news story essentially taught her daughter to be shark chum. Moreover, while the mother ordered the “principled” stand, it was her daughter who ended up taking a beating. The daughter was certainly an obedient child, but I do rather wonder if the mother would have stood there that passively if it was she, rather than her child, being attacked.
I wasn’t the only one thinking it’s a bad article that celebrates the next generation of victims. Although the article garnered only eight comments, one of them was right on the mark as far as I was concerned:
sorry but I rather take a suspension and stand my ground than to be hit upon, that is the problem with parents these days oh don’t fight back, I taught my son how to defend himself and in doing so he is respected because those who tried to fight him lost. I hate bullies. Everyone should know how to defend themselves.
Ever since my kids hit school, I’ve given them a single message: Never be the one to start a fight but, if someone else starts the fight, you make sure to end it. And don’t worry about the school’s subsequent response. If you had to use physical force to defend yourself, and if the school attempts to punish you, I will take the school on if I have to go all the way to the Supreme Court. I’ve never had to make good on this promise, since no one has ever physically attacked my kids. I suspect that, with my instruction ringing in their ears, they don’t walk around like shark bait.
By the way, I always back up this instruction to my kids by telling them that, had Jews not been conditioned by centuries of oppression to avoid arms, put their heads down, and try to appease authorities, its likely that the Holocaust wouldn’t have happened. Please understand that I’m not blaming those victims. First, no one could ever have imagined what the Germans intended to do. Second, the Jews’ behavior wasn’t a conscious decision. It was the result of a thousand years of conditioning. Israel, thankfully, while not blaming the victims, nevertheless learned the lesson. Like my children, Israel won’t start a fight, but she will finish it.
Incidentally, reading this news report about a school district’s institutional hostility to self-defense effectively bullying a child into victimhood, a behavior the child’s mother reinforced, reminded me of a post that America’s Sgt. Major wrote a couple of years ago at Castra Praetoria, explaining how to deal with bullies. I highly recommend it, because it’s both enjoyable and instructive.
(Another one that first saw the light of day on Mr. Conservative, but that’s definitely one I would have written for Bookworm Room too.)
There is no bully worse than a Leftist on an anti-bullying crusade. We’ve seen this play out over and over again in the area of guns, where kids find themselves arrested for wearing the wrong t-shirt and suspended for innocent childhood play, or where schools explicitly deny that Americans have Second Amendment Rights. Linden Avenue Middle School in Red Hook, New York, however, took this institutional bullying to a new level with a “tolerance” class about homosexuality that saw teenage girls being coerced into asking each other for kisses or pretending to go out on lesbian dates.
The anti-bullying presentation was targeted at 13- and 14-year-old girls. Parents were not notified in advance about either the presentation or its content, so they had no opportunity to opt out. The presentation focused on homosexuality, which is as old as man himself, and gender identity, which is a new construct for people who refuse to fit into neatly labeled Leftist boxes. The middle school girls therefore got an earful of New Age PC terms such as “pansexual” and “genderqueer.”
As if that wasn’t questionable enough, the presenters forced the girls into role-playing. They were told to ask each other for kisses and two girls were picked to stand in front of the class and pretend that they were on a date together. Mandy Coon, whose daughter was one of the girls forced into these activities, told reporters that “She told me, ‘Mom we all get teased and picked on enough. Now I’m going to be called a lesbian because I had to ask another girl if I could kiss her.’”
Watch Dan Savage, the Leftist face of the anti-bullying crusade, attack anyone who disagrees with him:
Parents were dismayed. “The school is overstepping its bounds in not notifying parents first and giving us the choice,” said an unnamed parent. “I thought it was very inappropriate. That kind of instruction is best left up to the parents.”
Another anonymous parent added “I was absolutely furious – really furious. “These are just kids. I’m dumbfounded that they found this class was appropriate.”
Despite complaints about the school’s failure to communicate what was going on and the way it offended community values, administrators are pleased with the bullying nature of the anti-bullying workshop, and plan to schedule more. Superintendent Paul Finch, showing himself to be utterly tone deaf, told The Poughkeepsie Journal that the presentation met its goal of focusing on “improving culture, relationships, communication and self-perceptions.” Finch has learned one lesson, though. He acknowledged the possibility that “we may require more notification to parents in the future.”
Ironically enough, Finch justified this whole exercise by citing to New York state’s “Dignity for All Students Act,” which prohibits harassment and bullying in the classroom. In common with all Leftists, Finch is incapable of understanding that bullying encompasses more than just gay-bashing. Bullying occurs whenever a gang or another powerful entity ridicules or attacks someone’s actions, belief systems, race, etc. And when this ridicule and attack comes, not from fellow students, but from the school itself, the situation has gone from bullying to out-and-out abuse.
There are a couple of things about modern life that are hard to understand. The first is why so many more children have potentially fatal peanut allergies than did in my youth. I have no idea why this is so, and probably never will.
The second thing that’s been mysterious to me is why bullying in school has suddenly become so epidemic. When I was young, there was certainly bullying (and I, being small, near-sighted, and socially awkward, came in for more than my fair share), but bullying really wasn’t a big deal the way it is now. For one thing, I don’t recall a single instance of someone committing suicide in San Francisco due to bullying during my school years, and I was one of those wonkish kids who read the paper daily (explaining, no doubt, why I was targeted for harassment). Lately, though, I’ve come up with a couple of theories about the rise of bullying.
There’s no doubt that social media is responsible in part for bullying. The fact that children can use Facebook and texting to bully from a distance makes the whole process so much easier. It’s one thing to insult a person to her (or his) face. That requires a certain amount of chutzpah. It’s another thing entirely, though, to add your “like” to a derogatory comment on someone’s Facebook page. That’s practically anonymous and gives one an emotionally safe distance from the emotional damage one is causing.
Even social media, though, doesn’t account for the atmosphere in schools that makes relentless bullying socially acceptable. And really, when one considers the omnipresent anti-bullying campaigns that are an integral part of every schools curriculum, it seems odd that bullying is equally omnipresent. Or does it? Could those anti-bullying campaigns be part of the reason bullying is on the rise? I think so.
The schools in my community perfectly exemplify the modern educational approach to bullying. They certainly don’t ignore bullying. To the contrary, they talk about it constantly. They hire touchy-feely gurus to come in and have the kids “open up” about their feelings, apparently in the belief that doing so will increase the average 14-year old’s empathy. They also have peer groups of “specially trained” students who walk around ordering other students not to engage in bullying and who are supposed to mediate school-yard quarrels. I have it on the best authority — the kids’ themselves — that these peer advisers have all the warm, cuddly qualities of a member of Mao’s youth brigade. Just as anti-bully campaigner Dan Savage turns out to be something of a bully himself, those teenagers vested with the power to stop bullying tend to let that power go to their heads. (Not all of them, of course, but enough of them to make other kids sour about the peer advisers.)
Kids who are caught engaging in bullying are counseled, made to do “reparative” work, overseen by faculty members and peer advisers, and otherwise made the objects of a great deal of attention. Unsurprisingly, when these bullies do get caught, they do not have warm and cuddly feelings towards those students who presumably ratted them out.
Oh, and here’s the really important thing to know about how schools deal with bullies: self-defense is not an option. The only recourse for a bullied child is to tell the school authorities.
In theory, this sounds lovely. It does away with vigilante justice and minimizes the fights that used to be fairly common on school playgrounds. That’s the theory.
In fact, making self-defense a crime is a bonanza for the bullies. The alpha child with a mean streak quickly figures out that, if he acts first to create a reign of terror, the other children are powerless to stop him. He’s figured out that it takes two to tangle sufficiently to get the authorities’ attention. As long as he’s dishing out the bullying, but no one is fighting back, the bullying is virtually invisible at the adult level.
Schools will tell you that they also counsel children how about how to avoid becoming victims. This is a semantic gimmick. To the extent the schools “teach” children how to avoid bullying, it doesn’t involve basic physical self-defense (which includes things as simple as walking in a confident way) or verbal self-defense (ways to take control of and deflect a potentially hostile interaction). Instead, it’s all about “feelings.” Well, the only “feeling” the bullied child knows well is fear. Being told to “express” that feeling doesn’t prevent the bullying. Nor does all this “feeling” talk defer the alpha child who’s intent on doing a bit of no good.
The enterprising bully is also unfazed by the fact that the schools have rules against punishing whistle-blowers. After all, the schools also have rules against bullying in the first place, but that’s clearly not stopping anyone.
In the old days, school yards meted out a form of rough justice: fist fights. They weren’t common in my day, but they happened. Two boys would hit the ground in a tangle of fists and feet, all the other children would gather around hollering “Fight!”, and, after a few minutes, a teacher would come along and break it up. That was usually the end of it. Fighting wasn’t encouraged, but it was tolerated up to a certain point, because it constituted community policing. The kids took care of things themselves and, along the way, they learned how to be responsible for their own safety, rather than dependent on others. (Please note that I’m not advocating kids beating each other up, nor am I confusing the rather innocent fist fights in my middle class schools with the brutal knife, gun, etc., gang fights that take place in America’s more dangerous schools.)
There is a perfect analogy for what’s going on in the schools: gun control laws. Those communities that have banned guns, and that have made even home defense a criminal act, blithely expected crime to go down. Instead, of course, it went up. Knowing that potential victims were helpless didn’t make criminals feel a sudden gush of compassion. Instead, it heightened their hunting instincts. Even the most thick-headed amongst them was able to figure out that the home robbery situation, rather than representing a risk, suddenly had all the fun and profit of hunting fish in a barrel.
On the street, the saying is that, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. The same is true in the schoolyard, only it’s worse. When seconds count, the school authorities aren’t there at all and, if a brave child tattles on the bully, either by telling his parents or by telling a school official, the bully suddenly becomes the center of the kind of attention that can only make the victim quite nervous about subsequent repercussions.
The best way to prevent violence is to have a population that can defend itself. While Progressives think that everyone who knows how to fight is a potential bully, I believe that everyone who knows how to fight and who is taught about justice, morals, and decency, is a bulwark against bullying, because he can protect not only himself but also those smaller and weaker than he is.
Dan Savage made a name for himself as the face of the “anti-bullying” campaign sweeping America’s schools. He’s gotten lots of money, lots of media face-time, and lots of access within the Obama administration because of his “peaceable” message. Savage’s own behavior, though, makes clear that his anti-bullying message is just another Leftist scam, meant to silence those with whom he disagrees. It’s not about civility, it’s about denying free speech to opposing political views. Savage’s latest bullying attack is on members of the GLBT crowd who dare to deviate from his Leftist orthodoxy.
Fellow Watcher’s Council member Dan Blatt (aka The Gay Patriot) has more about the Cone of Silence the left has erected around this uber-bully.
I love fairy tales. I’ve always loved fairy tales. Growing up, I devoured fairy tale books, with special emphasis on the Disney movies, with their beautiful princesses. My personal favorite was Disney’s Cinderella. I saw it once when I was a child and then, in a pre-video era, all I could do was replay endlessly in my memory the wonderful scene when Cinderella’s rags are transformed into a princess’s ball gown. When I saw the movie again as an adult, I was worried that it wouldn’t live up to my expectations, but I needn’t have feared. The movie was as charming as I’d remembered, and the transformation scene was a perfect piece of animation (and, rumor has it, Walt Disney’s own favorite animation moment):
The message in Cinderella couldn’t be more clear. First, be beautiful. But if you can’t achieve beauty, at least be a patient Griselda, one who tirelessly toils for cruel tyrants, with the promise of future reward.
That’s the theme in the majority of fairy tales that originated in the old world: be good, be passive, and some deus ex machina figure, usually magical, will come and rescue you. Passivity is the name of the game. In one fairy tale after another, the lead character, usually the youngest child of at least three siblings, prevails by virtue of being nice.
The other way to prevail in fairy tales that started life in the old world was to use guile. My favorite in this genre is The Valiant Little Tailor:
A tailor is preparing to eat some jam, but when flies settle on it, he kills seven of them with one blow. He makes a belt describing the deed, “Seven at one blow”. Inspired, he sets out into the world to seek his fortune. The tailor meets a giant, who assumes that “Seven at one blow” refers to seven men. The giant challenges the tailor. When the giant squeezes water from a boulder, the tailor squeezes water (or whey) from cheese. The giant throws a rock far into the air, and it eventually lands. The tailor counters the feat by releasing a bird that flies away; the giant believes the small bird is a “rock” which is thrown so far that it never lands. The giant asks the tailor to help carry a tree. The tailor directs the giant to carry the trunk, while the tailor will carry the branches. Instead, the tailor climbs on, so the giant carries him as well.
The giant brings the tailor to the giant’s home, where other giants live as well. During the night, the giant attempts to kill the man. However, the tailor, having found the bed too large, sleeps in the corner. On seeing him still alive, the other giants flee, never to be seen again.
The tailor enters the royal service, but the other soldiers are afraid that he will lose his temper someday, and then seven of them might die with every blow. They tell the king that either the tailor leaves military service, or they will. Afraid of being killed for sending him away, the king instead sends the tailor to defeat two giants, offering him half his kingdom and his daughter’s hand in marriage. By throwing rocks at the two giants while they sleep, the tailor provokes the pair into fighting each other. The king then sends him after a unicorn, but the tailor traps it by standing before a tree, so that when the unicorn charges, he steps aside and it drives its horn into the trunk. The king subsequently sends him after a wild boar, but the tailor traps it in a chapel.
With that, the king marries him to his daughter. His wife hears him talking in his sleep and realizes that he is merely a tailor. Her father the king promises to have him carried off. A squire warns the tailor, who pretends to be asleep and calls out that he has done all these deeds and is not afraid of the men behind the door. Terrified, they leave, and the king does not try again.
Old world fairy tales do not feature epic battles of good against evil, or even minor battles of good against evil. They abandon the heroic tradition of Greek dramas or even the mighty warriors of the Bible. Instead, they present a world of little people who prevail because of good deeds or guile.
Different scholars have theorized that fairy tales originated to keep children in line (hence the emphasis on passivity and good house-cleaning skills as the way to achieve worldly success) or as fireside stories, often quite ribald, that peasants told each other during long, dark nights (explaining the tales that featured otherwise insignificant people prevailing through stealth and guile). Regardless of origin, the net result is a genre that instructs children that assertiveness and self-reliance are much less important than submitting to tyranny with good grace and being sneaky when possible.
American-born fairy tales are vastly different. Of course, I use the phrase “American-born” advisedly. Because America is a nation of immigrants, we imported our fairy tales too, which explains why every American child is conversant with Cinderella, Snow White, and Aladdin. Nevertheless, Americans did create their own canon.
To begin with, American children dined on political hagiographies of our first leaders, with Parson Weems’ delightful, and untrue, stories about Washington leading the pack. These tales focused on distinctly American virtues: being honest, straightforward, and physically brave, virtues that are the antithesis of the trickery or downtrodden apathy in European tales.
American tales also dreamed big. We had the imaginary Paul Bunyan, John Henry, and Pecos Bill, whose size or energy literally changed the landscape in which they lived. Real figures, such as Johnny Appleseed or Davy Crockett had their actual exploits mixed with a large dollop of artistic license, and these tales opened up the West for Americans. Popular literature imagined dynamic, self-confident young people who made their own way in the world. They had help, but it wasn’t magical. Instead, it came from people who were attracted to the hero or heroines can-do spirit and gave them a helping hand. (Louisa May Alcott and Horatio Alger were masters of this genre.)
That notion of the pushing, striving, dynamic American hero got a spectacular boost when Hollywood came into being. Old Hollywood quickly discovered that American audiences craved big stories, with big heroes. Western movies impressed upon Americans that America’s fictional heroes didn’t succeed because they sat around waiting for magic to appear; they succeeded because they blazed trails, fought battles, civilized the wilderness, and generally took control of their own destinies.
World War II movies also emphasized Americans’ fighting spirit. We didn’t have endless movies about our victimization at Pearl Harbor. Instead, movie after movie celebrated America’s fighting spirit, both at home and on the battlefield. We had an enemy, said Hollywood, and we valiantly met in on the field of battle.
In the 1970s, Hollywood started feeling terribly guilty about the cultural imperialism in these tales and came up with the anti-hero. That played well to a guilty middle class, but was never a dramatic trope that had legs. The anti-hero works only if he acts . . . heroically. Americans want the little guy to win because he’s got guts. The artsy crowd may enjoy a Dog Day Afternoon, but ordinary Americans want to see little ole Luke Skywalker take on the empire, intrepid Indiana Jones fight bad guys the world over, or (with a big thank you to the British woman who dreamed him up) Harry Potter and Co. face off squarely against evil, and win through a combination of virtue and martial skills (all nicely packaged in some sparkly magic gimmicks).
The recent staggering success of The Avengers is just one more indication that Americans want their fairy tales to be proactive. The characters in The Avengers are pretty (it is Hollywood after all), but their attractiveness — an attractiveness that has generated a staggering $1 billion in ticket sales — comes about because they are strong and aggressive. They defeat the evil alien force by rock ’em, sock ’em, beat ’em up action. There is no room for negotiation, house cleaning, or even guile here. The only “goodness” that counts is one that is folded tightly into loyalty, patriotism, and physical bravery.
The Left is busily trying to chip away at these classic American virtues. Leftist movies have failed at the box office, but the Leftist challenge to the American virtues of physical bravery can be seen in the Left’s wholeheartedly embrace of the anti-bullying campaign. Many have asked why bullying has seemed to be on the rise in recent years. I think I figured out the answer when, in a casual conversation with my kids, I mentioned “school-yard fights.”
I got a surprising response to that throw-away line: “What’s a school-yard fight, Mom?”
“In the old days,” I said (just like a fairy tale), “when kids, especially boys, would get into fights, they started hitting each other.”
“Did they get suspended?”
“Maybe. But what usually happened was that they’d start swinging at each other. Everyone in the school yard would instantly circle them and start hollering ‘Fight! Fight!’ Then, a teacher would wade through the crowd, saying ‘Come on, everyone, break it up. Break it up now.’ The teacher would then wade into the fight, separate the two kids, shake ’em out and, more often than not, tell them to stop fighting. And that would be the end of it.”
“That would never happen today.”
(Incidentally, I am not talking about gang fights, which are a form of urban warfare. I’m talking about the old-fashioned elementary school playground battle, where two little kids settled the matter with some kicks and punches.)
No, it certainly wouldn’t. The focus today is on the bully. The bully gets suspended and the bully gets counseling. Kids are told that, if they get bullied, they should immediately get teachers involved. Good kids know that any type of self-defense is dangerous, as it could lead to suspension.
I hate bullying. I was bullied when I was a child and, I’m sad to say, when I had the opportunity, I immediately turned around and bullied others (verbally). I had a sharp tongue and wasn’t afraid to use it. But that sharp tongue was my self-defense. A well-timed insult, especially one that raised a laugh from the audience, deflected the bully and kept me safe. I never ran to the teacher. I got a reputation for being somewhat mean (which was partially deserved), but people left me alone. Had I been a boy, I might have punched someone and been left alone.
My point is that the best way to deal with bullying is two-pronged: First, create an environment in which bullying is frowned upon and mutual respect is the order of the day. This starts at the top, with teachers and administrators. In too many schools, however, teachers and administrations treat students with condescension, disdain, arrogance, or fear. Second, teach the victims how not to be victims. If you take away the targets, you take away a lot of the bullying. If students see themselves as warriors, not victims, bullying will become a much less enticing activity for those who are naturally inclined to dominate cruelly those around them.
I can already hear people saying that, if you emphasize the warrior spirit, our schools will start looking like a gladiator camp. Au contraire. If you emphasize brutality, that’s true. But if you emphasize the honorable side of the warrior, one that sees him respecting widows and orphans (so to speak), our schools will actually be much more civil than they are now. I’ve never known nicer kids than those who are martial arts black belts. They have a quiet self-confidence about them, that makes it unnecessary for them to lash out. Moreover, their peers respect them, and feel no need to test them.
It times to take the European Leftism out of our fairy tales, and reinstate an American ideal that involves honor, strength, and the willingness to fight for what’s right.
Let’s put aside the laughable fact that the MSM has had to go back to 1965, when Romney was a teenager, to find something bad about him (or, more specifically, something bad about him and a putatively gay person). This ridiculous attack has naturally generated attacks against Obama and Biden, both of whom, either in memoirs or biographies, turn out to have been bullies when they were children. Not chronic bullies, but they were mean to other children.
This is insanely stupid, and can reflect badly only on the MSM and the general Democrat establishment. As Rhymes With Right says:
I work with kids every day.
At some point, virtually every single one of them will engage in some activity that can be defined as bullying.
That may be because of immaturity, peer pressure, or simply thoughtlessness.
Some continue their bullying behavior into adulthood, and some particularly warped individuals — like anti-bullying activist Dan Savage — even manage to find a way to justify their bullying as morally virtuous.
I distinctly (and with a great deal of discomfort) remember being a bully when I was in school. It probably stands out in my mind because I was most often a victim. Being a skinny, little, glasses-wearing bookworm was not a recipe for social success. When someone came along who was an even bigger target than I was, I gleefully joined in with my former tormenters. I honestly don’t know what I was thinking. Was it just a child’s natural instinct to pick on those weaker? Was I hoping to ingratiate myself with the power structure? The answer is lost in the heavy mists of time.
What I do know is the Greg nailed it: “At some point, virtually every single one of them [kids] will engage in some activity that can be defined as bullying. That may be because of immaturity, peer pressure, or simply thoughtlessness.”
Watching the Dems implode is proving to be more fun than I expected. I only hope ordinary voters figure out what’s going on, and throw the bums out.
From Season 1 of The Simpsons (waaaay back in 1990), comes “Bart the General“:
After defending Lisa from school bully Nelson Muntz, Bart becomes Nelson’s latest target. Sick of the harassment and torment, Bart, Grampa Simpson, and Herman (a slightly deranged military antique store dealer with a missing arm) rally the town’s children into fighting back against Nelson and his cronies.
In real life, ten-year-old boys who try to defend themselves bullies (and, admittedly, this ten-year-old made a less than mature tactical decision), face quite a different situation– not from the bullies but from the administration:
Police say they have charged a 10-year-old Ohio boy after he told them he brought a BB gun to school to intimidate students who bullied him because he wears ankle braces and is small for his age.
Elmwood Place police Sgt. Kevin Vanover said Wednesday that the boy was charged with inducing panic after he took the BB gun to his elementary school in the suburban Cincinnati village on Monday. He remains in his mother’s custody awaiting a juvenile court hearing. No hearing date is set.
Vanover says the principal reported that some children said they saw the boy with the gun and thought it was a firearm. Police say the gun’s orange plastic tip was missing.
Did you catch that the school charged a frail, bullied 10-year-old with “inducing panic”? Even in Marin County they’re not that crazy. The other day, when some teenage boys were playing in the hillside wearing camo clothes and using air rifles without orange plastic tips, residents reasonably believed that there were snipers in the hills. After a police manhunt, the boys were let off with a warning:
Twin Cities police, with help from Mill Valley police, Marin sheriff’s deputies and the California Highway Patrol, blocked traffic on Casa Buena and Meadowsweet drives as they searched for the suspect. After about 30 minutes, police contacted two 14-year-old boys with Airsoft rifles, Gorwood said.
“They were not properly marked with the orange tips,” she said. “They were playing on the hillside, shooting at each other.”
Police seized the guns and released the boys to their parents. There were no plans to seek criminal charges, Gorwood said.
Back to the original report, about the terrorized ten-year-old charged with terrorizing, bullying seems to be a lot worse today than it was when I was young. Incidentally, I don’t have a blinkered, halcyon view of a childhood free of bullying. As the smallest, geekiest in any school I ever attended, the kid who had thick glasses and always carried a book with her, I came in for my fair share of bullying. And I’m very embarrassed to say this, but if a child ever appeared on the horizon who was even more of a target than I was, I gleefully sided with my former persecutors, delighted that their attention was on someone else for a change. So yes, bullying existed back then.
But back then, it wasn’t in the papers, it wasn’t a cause celebre for every TV show or pop star and — and this is a critical difference I think — kids themselves were expected to deal with the bullies. That’s what makes Bart the General so fascinating. It’s the last gasp of an era that sees kids turning to grown-ups for advice, but handling the bullies themselves. Nowadays, kids who try to deal with bullies, unless they’re lucky enough to have a YouTube video go viral, quickly find themselves in police custody, while the bully gets counseling.
I’m not advocating schools that look like Lord of the Flies, with invisible adults who make no effort to protect the children under their care. I do believe, however, that children must be able to defend themselves. They also have to be tough enough to take some bullying without crumbling under the pressure.
What we have here is a situation akin to those poor, disarmed Londoners. In London, criminals know that, if they get caught, they’ll face some kind of punishment from the legal system, although it will be minimal. They also know that their victims are completely defenseless. For the bad guys, it’s party time, because there are no disincentives, either from the authorities or from the folks staring into the barrel of their guns.
Here in American schoolyards, the situation is the same. Because American kids have been psychologically disarmed by Leftist school administrations, the bullies, the ones who have resisted this mental disarmament, know that there is no real downside to their behavior. They’re like the delinquents in West Side Story who bait poor Office Krupke by telling him there’s nothing he can do to stop them, because they are society’s victims, and therefore deserving of pity, not punishment. The American schoolyard bully knows that his victims have been trained to passivity, while the administration is trained in amateur, Leftist, 50s style psychology. It’s a win-win for the mini bad guy.
We spend a lot of time talking here about the way our Progressive culture infantilizes young people. Just think about the way the whole liberal world had a collective head explosion when Newt suggested that young people get jobs to learn the value of discipline and achieve the satisfaction of wages. But all is not perpetual babying of our youth when it comes to the Progressive education establishment. Woe betide the child, even a 7-year-old, who dares to transgress political correctness. Under those circumstances, no consequences is too severe, both to punish the malfeasor and to stand as a warning to all other children tempted to violate Progressive norms.
I speak, of course, of the child who punched a bully in the crotch (something, by the way, that we are all taught in self-defense classes is the best way to disable a predator) and was charged with sexual harassment. The story would be a non-story had the incident been treated the old-fashioned way, with both bully and victim hauled off to the principal’s office, to get proportionate punishments (with, I hope, more serious punishment going to the bully). In my day, those punishments included staying after school, missing recess, perhaps a one- or two-day suspension and the dreaded “I’m going to have to tell your parents about this.”
Mark Steyn summarizes perfectly the horror unfolding here, and I do mean horror. This is not just a silly joke about an over-reactive school administration. This is a life-long sentence for the 7-year-old:
There may be “another side” to this story, but it’s hard to foresee any version of events in which a First Grader can plausibly be guilty of “sexual assault”. Nevertheless, if found guilty, Mark Curran when he turns 18 will be placed on a “sex offender registry”, and his life will be ruined. If officials of the Boston public schools system genuinely believe that when a seven-year old kicks another seven-year old in the crotch that that is an act of “sexual harassment”, then they are too stupid to be entrusted with the care of the city’s children. If, on the other hand, they retain enough residual humanity to understand that a seven-year-old groin-kick is not a sexual assault but have concluded that regulatory compliance obliges them to investigate it as such, then they are colluding in an act of great evil.
Sometimes societies become too stupid to survive. If you’re wondering how a candidate’s presidential campaign can be derailed by allegations of “gestures” of “a non-sexual nature” that made women “uncomfortable” two decades ago rather than by his total ignorance of foreign policy and national security, well, this stuff starts in kindergarten. The loss of proportion and of basic human judgment in the American education system ought to be an unnerving indicator.
Yeah, you got that right.